Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Herts and Essex Water Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

East Surrey Water Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Lancashire County Council (Drainage) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time and committed. Lee Conservancy Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill (by Order),

Thames Conservancy Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL,

"to incorporate and confer powers upon the Lochaber Power Company; and for
other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Captain TERRELL: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many cases there have been in which an ex-service man or his widow have claimed a pension which has been refused on the ground that the disability was not the result of war service; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which some of these decisions are causing?

Colonel GIBBS: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Macpherson) is not able to be here to-day and has asked me to reply to his questions.
The number of cases in which pension has been refused to an ex-service man on the ground that the disability for which he claims was not due to service is 257,000. In the case of widows, the records of the Ministry do not show refusals before 1st April, 1920. The number of rejections since that date is 6,900. In all cases of refusal, whether of men or of widows, there is a right of appeal.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt both by local pension committees and by ex-service men as regards the awards of disability pensions; and can he see his way to recommend the Government to so remodel the present system as to ensure a greater feeling of confidence in the public mind with the ultimate awards?

Colonel GIBBS: I am not aware of any grounds for dissatisfaction with the present system under which pensions are awarded in accordance with the amount of disablement due to service, the man having the right of appeal to a Medical Appeal Board on the question of assessment and to an independent tribunal on the question of attributability.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be possible to put a little more humanity into the replies of this Department? There is something very curt and heartless about an official negative.

Colonel GIBBS: I will forward the suggestion to the proper quarter.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the unrest and dissatisfaction which exists amongst widows, dependants, and disabled men in connection with the present rates of disability pensions, which do not allow them to live in comfort; and whether, seeing that the grant of supplementary allowances in certain cases amounts to an admission of the inadequacy of the present flat rate, he will consider the desirability of increasing the pension to men totally disabled and to the widows and children of men who fell in the War?

Colonel GIBBS: I have to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Smethwick on the 28th February, of which I am sending him a copy. The supplementary allowances which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind are no doubt those made by the Special Grants Committee, which are intended to provide for exceptional cases of hardship.

APPEALS.

Captain TERRELL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether in all cases when the appeal of an ex-service man, as distinct from an officer, is under consideration, steps are taken to ensure that on the Appeal Tribunal there is always an ex-service man as a member of the deciding body?

Colonel GIBBS: The answer is in the affirmative. The constitution of the Tribunals is regulated by Statute, which provides that in such cases one of the members of the Tribunal shall be a disabled ex-service man.

Mr. WATERSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many demobilised service men have died from various diseases which they had contracted during war service, the final stages only developing in civilian life; if he will state if anything can be done for the widows and children of such de-
ceased men beyond the appeal to the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal; and if he will state the number of such appeals dealt with, stating the number successful or otherwise?

Colonel GIBBS: The Appeal Tribunals have heard and decided 1,978 appeals lodged by widows against decisions by the Ministry that the disease from which the husband died was not contracted in or aggravated by his service. Of those appeals, 523 were allowed and 1,253 rejected. The decisions of the Tribunals are declared by the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919, to be final.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these appeals that have gone to the Appeal Tribunal have been turned down, thereby inflicting great hardship on the widows, particularly when the doctor's certificate of death certifies that the disease was contracted during military service?

Colonel GIBBS: These Appeal Tribunals consist of one doctor, one lawyer and an ex-service man.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the Tribunal consider the man's medical sheet during his service, and is due weight given to the local doctor's opinion?

Colonel GIBBS: I must ask the hon. Member to put any question down.

Dr. MURRAY: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot answer, Why is not the Minister of Pensions here? Is he electioneering? Could he not choose another day for that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Penistone!"]

CHILDREN.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, under the regulations of the Special Grants Committee, supplementary pensions and allowances can only be granted to non-relatives in charge of orphans or neglected children of deceased ex-service men; and, if so, whether the regulations can be amended in order that the same benefits may also be granted to relatives in cases where the Local War Pensions Committees consider it would be in the interest of the children that this should be done?

Colonel GIBBS: Special rates of pension are payable under the warrant in respect of all motherless children, whether in the care of relatives or of strangers. Under the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, children of deceased soldiers who are suffering from neglect are placed under the care of the Minister, and in order that he may be able to give them the medical or other special attention that they need, and at the same time secure suitable foster-parents for them, certain supplementary grants are made available for their benefit under regulations administered by the Special Grants Committee. It is not possible to extend these regulations to motherless children generally, for whom the special rates of pension payable under the warrant are considered to be adequate.

SUSPENDED PENSIONS.

Major GLYN: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that in the event of a dependant entering a rate-aided institution, for instance, a lunatic asylum, the pension to which such an individual is entitled is suspended during such period as the dependant remains an inmate of the institution; whether the ratepayers under these circumstances in fact have to shoulder a responsibility that is really the State's obligation; and whether, in such circumstances, he will consider the desirability of providing that, in lieu of suspension of the money to which the individual is entitled, it should be paid to the local authorities in relief of the rates until the inmate emerges from such an institution?

Colonel GIBBS: The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The matter is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether compensation will be paid, or has been paid, to the relatives of the late Mr. Crowley, murdered by cadet Hart, of the Auxiliary Police; who will find the money; whether he is aware that Mr. Brady, resident
magistrate, was present at the beating and murder of Crowley and Canon Magner, and states that the other cadets in the lorry made no attempt to interfere; that Mr. Brady's house was subsequently raided; whether Mr. Brady was called as a witness at the official investigation; whether these other cadets were punished in any way; and whether any of them are now employed in Ireland?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): It is open to the relatives of the late Mr. Crowley to claim compensation in the ordinary way under the Criminal Injuries Act. Such compensation would be payable from the local rates. In regard to the remainder of the question, a written statement by Mr. Brady, setting out in full the circumstances of the murder, was fully considered in the course of the official investigation into the conduct of the cadets who were witnesses of the occurrence. As a result of this investigation it was decided that these cadets were in no way responsible for the crime, and that no action was called for in their case.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it just in a case of admitted murder by a policeman that the rates should be charged with the compensation to the relatives? Has he not enough humanity to award some compensation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"]—to the widow and seven children without their having to claim against the rates?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope I have as much humanity as any hon. Member. Many very, very grievous cases come to me every day. I cannot alter the law, and my answer must remain that the relatives of Mr. Crowley can claim compensation in the ordinary way under the Criminal Injuries Act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not something paid to Mrs. Quin and was her husband forced to appeal? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman exercise a little grace in these matters?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that.

Mr. DEVLIN: The husband of this poor woman was murdered by one of the uniformed officers of the Crown, who was
found guilty of murdering an innocent man on a country roadside. Does the right hon. Gentleman declare, apart from humanity or the question of justice, that the Government are not responsible for compensation to be given to this poor woman whose husband has been murdered?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman dishonouring the humanity of the British nation?

Mr. DEVLIN: May I press for an answer to my question? The Government cannot bring this man's life back, they cannot return him to his widow and little children. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do for the victims of one of the cruellest murders ever committed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Like every other hon. Member of this House, I am bound by the law passed by this House. I cannot alter it. As it now stands, anyone who sustains malicious injuries has a legal remedy, and it is impossible for me, with the best wishes in the world, to go outside the law.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make representations to the Cabinet on the lines suggested by the question of the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin)?

Mr. LAWSON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman declared at that box that when the Crown Forces are found guilty of destruction or killing the Treasury will bear the expense and not the county?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have never said that. I have said that in hard cases I will consider the matter, but while Ireland is in a state of rebellion it is impossible to give a definite decision on isolated cases, however hard.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was Mr. Brady's house raided?

Mr. DEVLIN: If the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the law is correct—that he has no power to grant compensation—how can he consider special cases? Will he introduce a short Bill into the House of Commons to so change the law as to enable him to pay compensation to these horribly treated people, the wives
and children of victims of officers of the law admitted by the Military Courts to have committed these crimes against innocent people.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Any question as to future legislation I must ask to have notice of.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that John O'Connor, of Gloundaeagh, Farranfore, Co. Kerry, was arrested on 15th December last whilst on his way to church, and driven away in a motor lorry; that he was beaten while in the lorry, thrown from the lorry into the road, fired on, and wounded; that civilians then carried him into the house of Thomas Brosnan, Threegneves, Currow, Farranfore, where he was tended by the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, of Killentierna, Farranfore; that four officers returned from Farranfore, to which place the lorry had proceeded, in a motor car, and, on ascertaining from the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan where O'Connor lay wounded, entered Brosnan's house and murdered O'Connor by firing three revolver bullets into his head; whether he is aware that the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, Mr. Brosnan, and other eye witnesses are prepared to testify to the foregoing facts on oath; whether an inquiry has been held; whether these witnesses were called; what was the finding; what action, if any, has been taken; and whether any compensation is to be paid to the widow and seven children of the murdered man?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed by the Commander-in-Chief that the inquiry directed by him to be made into the circumstances attending the death of this man is still proceeding. It will be the duty of the court to obtain and weigh all the available evidence, and I am requesting the Commander-in-Chief to furnish me with the result of the proceedings at the earliest possible date.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this case two months ago, and how is it that it takes nearly three months before a disgraceful episode of this sort is looked into?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Without prejudging the facts of the case, it is a matter for the Commander-in-Chief. The area is under martial law, and I must, naturally, await the result of his inquiry.

Mr. SWAN: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary whether at the court-martial which convicted Conway and Potter of the murder of Lieutenant Angliss 15 witnesses were brought to prove an alibi for Conway and seven to prove that Potter was in bed at the time?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 23.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the 30th January a body of auxiliaries, accompanied by two sergeants of the Elphin Royal Irish Constabulary, surrounded Creeve Catholic Church, while Mass was in progress, and planted a machine gun in a field commanding the sacred edifice; that as the congregation left the church they were all, including women and children, searched, and a number of men were beaten with rifles, etc., in the course of an attempt to extort from them information as to persons on the run; that, in the act of striking a young man with a rifle, one of the auxiliaries missed his aim and smashed a church window; that the officiating priest was subjected to search, during the progress of which he was compelled to keep the sacred Host, which was in his custody at the time, in his outstretched hand in order to prevent desecration; that the church and sacristy were thoroughly searched, the priest being forced to open the tabernacle on the high altar; that even an empty ciborium, used for the custody of the sacred communion wafers, was peered into; that a tabernacle on a side altar, for which the priest had no key, was broken open; and whether, in view of the enormity, in the eyes of the people, of this sacrilege, he will have inquiries made into the matter, and give instructions that such acts shall not be repeated?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have called for a report with reference to these allegations. If the hon. Member will kindly repeat one day next week this question,
of which I only received notice on Tuesday, I hope then to be able to furnish him with a reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: When an incident of this character takes place, when it is notorious that it has taken place, and when the fact that it has taken place has been published in the Press, does not the right hon. Gentleman himself inquire into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Reports come to me in the usual way, but I cannot accept reports in the Press as accurate—

Mr. WATERSON: Not when prompted by the Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: And if an hon. Member asks me a question on a specific event or incident, I am bound to refer to the authorities in Ireland for an official answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: When charges and allegations of so serious a character as these are made against the uniformed officers of the Crown, and when these facts are notorious and are published in the Press, does not the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of his own administration, call for reports at the time in order to gather whether they are accurate or not? It is now five weeks since this outrage took place, and since it was published in the Press that it had taken place.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If an outrage has taken place inquiry is automatically made into it; but, unless it is raised by an hon. Member of this House, I do not personally ask for a report of every alleged outrage in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: When an inquiry has automatically taken place, is the right hon. Gentleman informed of the result of that inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly, in the usual way, if I call for a report of a specific case; but not all reports on alleged outrages in Ireland are forwarded to me.

Captain REDMOND: May I ask who are the authorities in this case—whether this body of auxiliaries are under the control of the military or of the police authorities?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should require notice of that question. I send my request to both authorities for a report from both—the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the Police.

Captain REDMOND: Has the time not yet arrived when the right hon. Gentleman can definitely inform the House under what control this irregular body of auxiliaries are—whether they are under the military or the police, or any control?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Perhaps I may answer that question in addition to what was said in Debate the other night. In the martial law area all the police and military are under General Strickland. In the rest of Ireland the police and military work in co-operation, but the police are under their police head, and the military under the Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. DEVLIN: Who really is the head of the police in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: General Tudor.

Mr. DEVLIN: What is his precise position?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Chief of Police.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 55.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiry into the case of Mr. E. Dorrins, a member of the United Operative Plumbers and Domestic Engineers' Association, who was taken from his bed at his own home in Dublin at 12.30 a.m. on 3rd February by Crown forces, and after ill-treatment by them was conveyed in a motor lorry through the city and was asked by the officer in charge whether he would like to be drowned or shot, and was taken to Capel Street bridge where three members of the Crown forces flung him into the river; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have made careful inquiry into this matter and am informed that Mr. Dorrins was admitted to the Jervis Street Hospital, Dublin, about midnight on the 3rd ultimo, suffering from shock as the result of being immersed in water, and was detained as a patient for a week, but that the police have been unable to obtain any information as to the persons by whom he was
assaulted. The military authorities to whom I have also applied have no knowledge of the occurrence.

Mr. MOSLEY: 57.
asked the Chief Secretary how many members of the forces of the Crown formed the escort in charge of James Murphy on the evening of the 9th February last when James Murphy was murdered?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Three persons have been arrested and are awaiting trial for this murder. It would, therefore, in my view be improper for me to make any statement at present in regard to the facts of the case.

Mr. MOSLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state whether there were only three persons on this lorry or whether there were more?

Mr. DEVLIN: 60.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of the Crown forces at Cahirvoneen, near Kinvarra, County Galway; whether these forces stripped naked six young farmers, and put them lying face down on the ground with heavy stones over them; whether, after burning their clothes, they forced these young men to carry from the farmhouse of Mrs. Quinn fowl, bacon, flour, and other things to a lorry which was waiting, after which they mercilessly beat these young men and dismissed them; and whether he will take any action to have the guilty parties punished?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As I stated, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Harrow Division on Tuesday, I have directed full inquiry to be made into this matter. I must necessarily await the receipt of that report before making any further statement in regard to this matter.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the operation of Part II of the Schedule to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, many pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary with small pensions are being deprived of the increase of pension which they would otherwise receive under that Act; whether, for instance, he is aware that a Royal Irish Constabulary man who retired on account of physical infirmity in 1917
with a pension of £66 11s. 2d., and who would, but for Part II of the Schedule, have received an increase of 40 per cent. to his pension, namely, £40 8s. 5d., has been, under the operation of Part II. of the Schedule, adjudged to be entitled to receive only £8 8s. 10d. increase; and whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to avoid such cases of extreme hardship?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The provisions of Part II of the Schedule referred to are essential for the purpose of securing that due allowance is made for increases of pre-war pension already granted through improvement in pensions scale or increase in pensionable emoluments since the 4th August, 1914. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend is, therefore, not practicable.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these faithful servants of the Crown are in a state of extreme penury—worse, many of them, than those who are in receipt of unemployment pay in this country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I know that many ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are in very hard circumstances, but it is for this House to decide whether their pensions shall be increased, and not for me.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 51.
asked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the small pensions and very straitened circumstances of many pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the difficulty they have in getting employment of any sort, he will, as soon as possible, introduce a Bill to amend the Pensions Increase Act, 1920, on the lines urged on him by a deputation of these pensioners on 8th July, 1920; whether such Amendments will include the abolition of the age limit of 60 years, the elimination of earned and unearned income, and a reasonable increase of pension; and whether he has urged the Treasury to agree to such Amendments, and with what result?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The position of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners was very fully considered when the Pensioners (Increase) Act was passing through this House. I cannot, therefore, hold out any hope amending legislation on this subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the extremely hard cases that have arisen under the operation of this Act, and especially Part 2 of the Schedule; and will he ask the Treasury to provide the money or bring in a Bill to amend that Act?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have asked the Treasury, and they have referred me to the House of Commons.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend then bring in a Bill?

NON-COMBATANTS (INQUESTS).

Mr. BRIANT: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary how many inquests have been held on non-combatant men, women, and children during the last three months; and how many of the deaths have been attributed to forces of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give this information. I will do my best.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the list those soldiers or policemen who were murdered while unarmed?

ARRESTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Chief Secretary whether Mrs. James Ryan, wife of the hon. Member for South Wexford, who is in prison without charge, was arrested on 16th February last at Wexford for having refused to allow a martial law proclamation to be exhibited in the window of her private house and imprisoned in Water-ford gaol; whether she was taken away from an infant aged eight months; what steps have the authorities taken to see that the infant, now parentless, is provided for; and whether it is with his approval that the military power compels a lady in Mrs. Ryan's position to exhibit a martial law proclamation in her private house?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that Mrs. Ryan was arrested on 16th February, by the direction of the competent military authority, for refusing to exhibit a martial law proclamation in the window of her house. She was tried by Summary Court on 26th February, fined £15, and released. Previous to her arrest arrangements were made for her children to be cared for by her sister.

Mr. DEVLIN: How many women are in prison in Ireland for such offences?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that Mrs. Ryan has paid the fine and been released, and is now at liberty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said so; she is released.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have you arrested the baby yet?

Mr. WATERSON: 24.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that William J. Doherty was arrested in or near Strokestown, County Roscommon, on the 14th instant, and conveyed under military escort to Longford military barracks; whether Mr. Doherty is being kept in chains, and whether no one, not even the military chaplain, is allowed to see him; whether he is aware that Mr. Doherty's solicitor wrote to the officer in command asking for information as to the charge on which Mr. Doherty was being detained, and as to when and where it was proposed to try him; that although the solicitor requested an early reply for the purpose of preparing the defence no answer has been received; whether he will make inquiries into this matter; and whether he can now state the charge against Mr. Doherty and the date and place of his trial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have directed inquiry to be made into this case. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question next Thursday, I will endeavour to furnish him with the information that he desires.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Is not this incident connected with the alleged looting of a bank at Strokestown, about which I asked the right hon. Gentleman in my speech on Tuesday, and as to which I have not yet had a reply?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I remember the speech of the hon. Member with great pleasure, but I must have notice of that question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Have there been too many cases of looting for the right hon. Gentleman to remember that one?

Mr. MYERS: 53.
asked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Sean McGrath, secretary of the Irish Self-Determination League, has been arrested in London and
deported to Ireland; if so, if he will say under what Act of Parliament Mr. McGrath was arrested; whether any charge has been preferred against him; and for what reason he has been taken to Ireland?

Mr. MILLS: 18.
asked the Chief Secretary on what grounds Mr. Sean McGrath, residing at 23, Rochester Place, Kentish Town, was taken from the office of the Irish Self-Determination League, 182, Shaftesbury Avenue, was refused permission to consult a solicitor, or to communicate with his wife; and where he is now detained and upon what charge?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply to this question and question No. 53. Mr. McGrath was arrested at 182, Shaftesbury Avenue to give effect to an Order for his internment in Ireland issued under No. 14B of the Regulations made under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. He did not ask to communicate with his wife, but the police did, in fact, inform her of his arrest and whereabouts. He was not refused permission to consult his solicitor, but he did not ask to see him until 7 p.m., and it was not found possible to arrange an interview before McGrath's departure for Ireland early the next day. The solicitor was, however, offered and accepted an interview at police headquarters, where he was given a copy of the Internment Order and other particulars. Mr. McGrath is interned as a person who is suspected of acting, having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland, and is at present in Ballykinlar internment camp.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that anyone in England can be arrested under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and be taken over to Ireland to be tried there?

Mr. SHORTT: That depends on what he has done.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Act apply here? May I have an answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Be careful!"]

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 54.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, who was arrested on 16th February, was on 19th February placed in solitary confinement in a punishment cell in which there is not light enough at mid-day to read without candles; and that he has been deprived of the four hours' exercise in the open allowed to other prisoners, and is instead taken for 20 minutes' exercise in a corridor; and whether he will state by what authority special punishments are inflicted on untried and uncharged prisoners in gaol?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received notice of this question only yesterday. I at once gave direction for the most searching inquiry to be made into these allegations.

COURTS-MARTIAL (JUDGE ADVOCATES).

Mr. WATERSON: 14.
asked the Chief Secretary what precise degree of legal training is required of a Judge-Advocate at a court-martial?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Judge Advocates at courts-martial in Ireland are persons approved by the Judge Advocate General as having a sufficient degree of legal training and experience. In addition, when the trial is on a capital charge under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, the Court must include as member a person certified by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the Lord Chief Justice of England to be a person of legal knowledge and experience.

INCENDIARY BOMBS, CORK.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked the Chief Secretary whether there was any evidence of the use of incendiary bombs in connection with the burning of Cork; and whether any such bombs are issued to, or are in the possession of any, Forces of the Crown in Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The earlier reports which reached me with regard to this matter seemed to indicate that such bombs had been used, but this was not confirmed by later information. No incendiary bombs have at any time been issued to any of the Crown Forces in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in order to clear up this and
other cognate matters, publish or place on the Table of the House General Strickland's Report?

Mr. MOSLEY: He dare not!

CONDUCT OF TROOPS, THURLES.

Mr. WIGNALL: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a complaint was made to the officer commanding troops, Thurles, by a woman as to the conduct of two soldiers; whether an inquiry was held; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Commander-in-Chief informs me that he has not been able to identify the incident referred to from the particulars contained in the hon. Member's question, which do not include either the substance of the complaint or the date of the occurrence of which he complains. He has, however, asked the Officer Commanding at Thurles to furnish a report. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly repeat his question one day next week.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I repeat a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, namely, whether, when questions are put to him and he is not in possession of full information, and is calling for a report, he will be good enough to convey the report which he has received to the Member who put the question, without his having to put down a special question in regard to it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must answer a question in the way that I think will give the greatest information to the Member who asks it and to the whole House. I cannot pledge myself to issue in full all the reports I receive.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman write to the Member who puts the question and let him know?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought that that was always done.

DISTURBANCES, BALBRIGGAN.

Mr. MOSLEY: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had received, before the 9th October, any information concerning the sacking of Balbriggan by forces of the Crown on 21st September, 1920, resulting in the death of two women and four children; and, if so, what is the character of that information?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received a full report concerning the occurrences at Balbriggan on the night of the 21st September last, many days before the 9th October. I have at no time, however, received a report to the effect that the deaths of two women and four children resulted from the disturbances on the night in question. I am informed that there is no truth in this allegation.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I ask the Prime Minister why he was not acquainted with events which took place nearly a fortnight before he went to Carnarvon on 3rd October and delivered a speech on the Irish situation which, according to this information, entirely misrepresented the facts of the case?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I do not accept that statement.

REPRISALS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether between the months of June and October last, inclusive, any proposals for the initiation or continuance of the policy of reprisals in Ireland were laid before the Cabinet or any section of the Cabinet; whether such proposals were discussed; and whether any decision upon the subject was given or any form of sanction extended to such a policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Irish policy of the Government was constantly under consideration by the Government during the time named in the question, and has been frequently explained in Debate in this House.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman definitely state that no official sanction whatsoever has ever been extended to the policy of reprisals, at any rate, beyond that which has been supplied in his early speeches?

The PRIME MINISTER: Statements have been made in this House repeatedly by the Leader of the House, the Chief Secretary and myself as to the policy of the Government and by those we stand.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I ask for a definite answer from the right hon. Gentleman? Has any official sanction ever been extended to the policy of reprisals? That question has never been answered. Will he answer it now?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I have said.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit official sanction?

DEATH SENTENCES (APPEALS).

Mr. DEVLIN: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether any provision exists for an appeal from a death sentence passed by the military courts set up in Ireland under the Restoration of Order Act, 1920, and other Acts; and, if not, whether, in view of the large number of death sentences inflicted by these courts, he will make immediate provision for appeals to the civil courts from such military courts?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply.

Mr. DEVLIN: I want the Prime Minister to answer it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer it, and I am going to do it. The Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920, passed only last August in circumstances familiar to this House, contains no provision for an appeal to any civil court from the courts-martial to which jurisdiction is given under that Act. The procedure of these courts follows the law and practice relating to courts-martial held under the Army Act, for which a sufficient and suitable system of review is in force, and from which any appeal to a civil court would be entirely inappropriate. The proceedings of these, as of all other courts-martial, are reviewed by the Judge Advocate-General before confirmation of sentence. The accused can also avail himself of his right to petition the Commander-in-Chief and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. It is not proposed to take any such action as is suggested.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that a universal feeling prevails in the country that many innocent men are being executed—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I know and you do not—he will consider the desirability of setting up some non-military tribunal for the purpose of having all the evidence investigated before the sentence is carried out?

The PRIME MINISTER: We considered very carefully before, we ever set
up martial law the desirability of setting up a civil tribunal. We should have bean very glad to do it if it had been possible, but we came to the conclusion, that having regard to all the exigencies, it was quite impossible to do so. To do so at the present moment would, I think, interfere with the course of justice. Everyone is very shocked at the necessity for inflicting the death penalty on a largo number of men, but, after all, if you only look at the figures you will find there are far more murders than there have been punishments.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which I know he will treat sympathetically, whether he is aware that really the major portion of all the evils which have sprung up in Ireland during the last four years were due to the executions in 1916, and whether, in view of the crop of troubles which have been consequent on those executions and the great feeling of horror created in the country, he will consider the desirability of trying to do something to stop this thing and try to approach the question in some other way, and not continue a policy which is bound to poison all future relations between this country and Ireland?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that in the rebellion of 1916 some 300 of our soldiers were murdered, and only 15 executions at most?

Mr. DEVLIN: In the rebellion there were a number of people killed as well.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is undoubtedly so, and the same thing applies now, though not quite in the same proportion. Anyone who looks at the figures will realise that we cannot possibly allow murder to go unpunished. The only suggestion my hon. Friend put forward was that there should be an appeal, but he now goes very much further, and practically suggests that we should not punish the murderer at all. That, I think, is something which will not commend itself to his more mature reflection. With regard to finding any other methods of pacification I should be only too glad to do so. There is another question put by the Noble Lord above the Gangway (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) which I
propose to answer later on. I should be very glad if it were possible to find other methods.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Does the Prime Minister recollect that when the Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill was passing through this House he stated that the infliction of the death penalty would require some further authority from this House, and, secondly, in such a case as that of the man James Allen, who was shot for being in possession of a revolver and a military book, where there is no evidence of complicity to murder but simply the possession of arms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I be allowed to put my question?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They do not like it.

Earl WINTERTON: Remember Woolwich, and do not try to bully us.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Hon. Members opposite seem to resent the putting of a most serious question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I will repeat the question: Whether the Prime Minister recollects that when the Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill was going through this House, he stated that the infliction of the death penalty would require further authority from this House, and, in the second place, in such a case as that of the man James Allen, who was shot the other day for being in possession of a revolver and a military book, whether he will see that there is an appeal allowed to the highest military authority from the Court which passes the death sentence?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend is quite wrong. I never said that when martial law was proclaimed it would require further authority from this House. If he will only refer to the statement which I made on the Friday, when I announced martial law, he will see that I stated most distinctly that unless deadly weapons were surrendered by a certain date, every man found in possession of them would have the death penalty inflicted. James Allen had in his possession not only a revolver, but three dumdum bullets. What did he have those bullets for? If murder is to be stopped in Ireland, very exemplary punishment must be inflicted upon those who, in defiance of an order of the Government,
insist upon keeping weapons of this kind in their possession. They are only using them for the purpose of murder.

Mr. DEVLIN: You have no evidence of that.

The PRIME MINISTER: No evidence! What more evidence do you want than the fact that a man, after an order has been given that weapons must be surrendered, had in his possession a revolver and three dum-dum bullets?

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this declaration is to be universally applied in Ireland, and whether he is aware of the fact that persons found guilty of carrying revolvers and ammunition in Ulster have been fined 40s. and costs?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not in a martial law area. There are other parts of Ireland that are not under martial law.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what period is allowed between the confirmation and the carrying out of the sentence?

ADMINISTRATION (CONFERENCE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increase of murder, arson and looting in Ireland, and having regard to the fact that it has been shown that the use of force by the Government only leads to further murders and other violence, he will consider the advisability of holding a conference with the elected representatives of the Irish people, in order that their assistance and co-operation may be enlisted in securing the reign of law and order.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly expressed my readiness to confer on the problem of Irish Government with any person or body of persons who can legitimately claim a right to speak on behalf of the Irish people.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from making declaration that everybody knows are fatal to any conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know the particular declaration to which the Noble Lord refers. If he means the
declaration that we cannot assent to an Irish republic I canot possibly withdraw that.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish leaders have lately made an announcement that they are willing to accept terms which this country could give and which are not in the least inconsistent with either the unity or the safety of this Empire or the supremacy of the Crown?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have always stated that I should be perfectly ready to confer with the responsible Irish leaders upon that basis. It is no fault of ours that a conference has not taken place.

Mr. CLYNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the responsible leaders of Irish opinion have been put in prison?

Mr. SWAN: Would not the chosen representatives of the Irish people be the proper persons with whom to negotiate a settlement?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, and I stated so in the statement which I made in the House before separating. We should be perfectly willing to give every facility for the elected representatives of the Irish people to meet in order to make any proposals to the Government, or to arrange a deputation to meet the Government, and again it is no fault of ours that that has not been done.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman impose the condition that the Irish should lay down their arms?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. That was in reference to the question of a truce. In the matter of a truce we regard the laying down of arms as essential. It is a totally different matter when it is a question of conferring with the elected representatives of the Irish people who have been elected to this House by constitutional means at the last General Election.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to understand that there has been an offer that the representatives of the people, all of them unreservedly, are to be permitted to meet for the purpose of considering any proposals and that they and the representa-
tives of the Government should meet together for the purpose of endeavouring to bring about a settlement of the Irish Question?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend knows the statement which I made in that respect. There are certain people, whose names I have promised to give, whom we cannot allow to meet. They are suspected on good grounds of having taken part directly in murder. We could not possibly assent to their meeting. There is no distinction between Irish Members and any other Members in this respect. Any Member reasonably suspected of crime of that character would be liable to arrest. With the exception of those men—and they are very few—we would certainly give every facility for their meeting.

Mr. DEVLIN: Were any reservations of this character made when the representatives of the British Government met the representatives of the Boers in South Africa? Could not some of the things done by these representatives be described as the right hon. Gentleman has described some of the things done in Ireland? And is there any possibility of a conference ever taking place if the right hon. Gentleman insists upon getting men to admit that they are murderers when they are not?

The PRIME MINISTER: Really it is an insult to the Government of South Africa to suggest that there is any comparison between men who fought openly in the field and men who patrol the streets as civilians under the protection of the law and turn round and shoot their guardians.

Mr. DEVLIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Pennefather [who asked Question No. 44, col. 2006].

HACKNEY MOTOR LICENCES.

Mr. W. COOTE: 56.
asked the Chief Secretary the number of hackney motor licences in the Aughnacloy police district which have been refused renewal by the competent military authority owing to the district inspector's carelessness in making his reports on same; is he aware that great hardship has been caused by this carelessness, many families being deprived for weeks of their means of subsistence;
and will he take steps to ensure that these men shall get their permits without further trouble?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This question appeared in the paper yesterday, and I have directed immediate inquiry to be made into this matter.

BURNINGS, BALLYLONGFORD.

Mr. DEVLIN: 59.
asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the burning of 20 houses in the town of Ballylongford, County Kerry, on Tuesday, 22nd February, by the forces of the Crown; whether seven lorries of these forces visited the town, and raided and looted houses, before finally setting them on fire; whether, amongst other buildings raided, was the local post office, from which over £30 worth in cash and stamps was stolen; whether the lorries afterwards drove back to Tralee laden with loot; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: These allegations refer to the Martial Law area. I have called for but have not yet received a report with reference to them. I will furnish the hon. Member with the desired information as soon as I am in a position to do so.

SHOOTINGS, MALLOW (INQUIRY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. T. Healy, K.C., has not drawn up a series of questions to be put to Captain King, R.I.C., bearing on the Mallow inquiry, and has refused to accept such procedure; and whether he will now require Captain King to be produced as a witness?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir. It is, I believe, a fact that Mr. Healy has refused to accept the procedure which had beein suggested in this case. County-Inspector King who, the House will remember, was badly wounded in the foot on the occasion of the brutal murder of his wife at Mallow, is at present in Scotland under medical care. It is thought probable that he will have to undergo an operation. I have specially sent an officer to interview him and to arrange for his attendance at the Inquiry if his doctors permit him to travel. If he is unable, on purely medical
grounds, to attend, it is proposed to place a sworn statement of his evidence before the Court.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will it not be possible to adjourn the Court to Scotland, or part of the Court, and give Mr. Healy a chance of examining the witness? It is in the interests of justice.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I see no reason for making an exception in this case.

DEATH SENTENCE (DERMOT O'SULLIVAN)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chief Secretary whether Dermot O'Sullivan, aged 17 years, has been sentenced to death in connection with the Drumcondra ambush on 21st January last; whether he is aware that the evidence against this youth is not conclusive; and whether it is intended to execute a youth of 17 years of age on such evidence?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is the case that Dermot O'Sullivan with four other civilians have been sentenced to death by a general court-martial. As regards the remainder of the question, I can only repeat what I have already stated in reply to similar questions put by hon. Members in other recent cases, that I must decline to discuss in this House either the evidence on which the court based their finding, or the advice which it may be my duty to tender to the Lord Lieutenant. The House may be assured that every relevant consideration will be carefully weighed in this, as in every other case, before a final decision is taken.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself has seen the evidence, and is he aware that there is some grave doubt about the matter in regard to the identification?

Mr. STANTON: By whom were you briefed?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: By the mother.

Mr. STANTON: Why were you briefed, you traitor?

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it very undesirable to have a boy of 17 years executed, apart
from the fact that the evidence is not of a character altogether to justify an execution?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is it not a fact that most of these murders and assassinations are carried out by youths who are Irish gunmen from America?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think I can add anything usefully to what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

POLAND (OCCUPATION OF VILNA).

Colonel NEWMAN: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether, without detriment to the interests of the nations involved, he can give the House any information as to the strength and composition of the League of Nations force which is under orders to proceed to Poland to occupy Vilna; and will he say by whom the expenses of the force are being met and where it is located at present?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the reply which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on this subject to a Private Notice Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East.

Sir J. D. REES: With reference to the reply to my question, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the definition of an Archdeacon as an ecclesiastical officer who performs Archidiaconal functions?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Who is in command of this force?

LOCAL RATES.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee to examine and report upon the great inequalities of the incidence of local rates, with power to make such recommendations as may seem desirable in the basis, method of assessment, and collection of local taxation as well as the reallocation of rating areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Government are fully alive to the importance of this matter and are giving full consideration to it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman in giving consideration to this matter take into account that the last Royal Commission on this subject is 20 years old and that local authorities are getting more and more restive now owing to the gross inequalities of rates and rateable value in the various areas, and in view of the tremendous rise in rates this year it is really a very urgent question from the point of view of local authorities generally?

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree it is a very urgent question, and when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer there was a Debate on the Address on it and two or three Debates in the course of the Session. But I think the hon. Member is wrong in saying that was the last enquiry. I appointed a Select Committee I think it was—a very able body of men. That could not have been 20 years ago. I agree that it has always been urgent, and it is much more urgent now becuse of the very heavy burden of the rates.

MOTOR CARS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 32.
asked the Prime Minister how many motor cars are at present in use by all the various Government Departments; and how many motor cars were in use by all the various Government Departments at this period of the year in 1914?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The number of motor cars in use in London by Government Departments is:


—
1921.
1914.


Admiralty
5
none


War Office
10
3


Air Ministry
5
none



-20
—3


Civil Departments—




G.P.O
1
1


Ministry of Munitions
1
none



-2
—1



22
4

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any reason why there should be such a great increase in the
number of cars used by the Department in comparison with 1914, and might not the very useful economy be made of discontinuing the running of the majority of these cars?

Mr. HAILW00D: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many businesses are using motor cars for the purpose of economy?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WAGES BOARD REGULATIONS.

Captain BROWN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that great quantities of work are available in country districts; that those requiring work are prevented from taking this work owing to the inelasticity of the regulations of the Wages Board; and if he will direct that modifications be made in the regulations, with a view to removing this present cause of unemployment?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR: The Orders of the Agricultural Wages Board relate only to employment in agriculture as denned by the Corn Production Act. The amount of ordinary agricultural work available is not larger than usual at this time of year, but it is understood that in certain parts of the country the reclamation or improvement of land has been undertaken with the view of providing additional employment. Whether any such operations come within the statutory definition of employment in agriculture can only be decided by reference to the circumstances of the case, and if my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any case which he has in mind, I shall be glad to submit the facts to the Agricultural Wages Board for their consideration. As my hon. Friend is aware, exemption from the operation of the minimum rates of wages can only be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the Corn Production Act, and does not rest in the discretion of the Minister or of the Agricultural Wages Board.

RELIEF WORKS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians have protested against the neglect of the Government to provide for the unemployed, in conse-
quence of which the guardians of the poor have been compelled to expend thousands of pounds of the ratepayers' money in relieving distress amongst such men which would have been unnecessary had provision been made by the Government; if he is aware that the Board has protested against the non-fulfilment of the schemes of relief works proposed by the late Ministry of Reconstruction for absorbing men demobilised from the forces during the past two years or more with the object of preventing unemployment on a large scale, and requested that the Government make a sufficient grant from the Imperial Exchequer to unions and parishes to repay the whole of the cost of the relief in money and kind which boards of guardians are allowing the unemployed and their families; and if he will take action in the matter?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the representations referred to in the earlier parts of the question. As regards the late Ministry of Reconstruction, the efforts of that body appear to have been limited to asking for particulars as to works which might be undertaken on the conclusion of the War. A good deal of this work has been put in hand during the last year or two, and in so far as this has not been done already, I trust that local authorities will be encouraged to take advantage of the assistance which may be received from the Unemployment Grants Committee. The Government's contribution towards the relief of unemployment takes the substantial form provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act which is now being extended; large grants for the construction of arterial roads; the assistance which is given, through the Unemployment Grants Committee; alternative work and short time in Government establishments; and the expediting of the lay-out of roads and sewers on approved housing schemes.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of men and women cannot find work and are not entitled to benefit under the Unemployed Workers Act, and is he aware that boards of guardians in many parts of the country are absolutely compelled to give relief in moneys and in kind for the purpose of keeping these people alive?
Does he not think that something ought to be done to relieve local authorities of a terrible burden?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The West Ham Guardians have received a reply to their petition that an Exchequer grant should be made in relief of local rates that this cannot be granted.

DOCK LABOURERS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the hard case of many Liverpool dock labourers, who have been reduced to a state of semi-starvation through the postponement of out-of-work pay due on Friday last, and, if so, will he take immediate steps to alleviate this distress, and to ensure that no similar delays occur in future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have taken up by telegram the question of whether any men last Friday failed to receive any Out-of Work Donation due to them. If so, that shall at once be remedied. It may be, however, that the men in question exhausted last week what was due to them under the fourth extension of Out-of-Work Donation, or the amended Unemployment Insurance Act of last December. The Bill, which we shall immediately receive back from another place, is designed to render assistance by extending the period of benefit. And if, as I hope, it becomes law to-day, every effort will be made to commence payment at the earliest possible date.

Mr. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that such cases are due to the fact that, although the dock labourer may be idle four days a week, he is only entitled to draw one day at the end of the week, and then there is some difficulty in getting it? It is owing to the unfortunate conditions under which they have to apply under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me.

ARMENIA.

Sir J. D. REES: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if events in Cilicia since the Armistice afford any justification for the contention that the Armenians have been
or will be less humanely treated by our French Allies than by ourselves; and whether under the Treaty of Sèvres or any other international instrument or agreement any greater responsibility for the future of Armenia and the Armenians rests upon the British than upon the French nation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH AUTHOR'S RIGHTS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that printing is the one nourishing trade under communism in Russia; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the dumping of plays and novels by popular British authors which have paid no royalties to the writers?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there has been activity in the printing trade in Russia. As regards the second part of the question, the remedies afforded by Section 6, 11 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1911, are thought to be sufficient to prevent the dumping of such plays and novels in the United Kingdom.

BOOKS (OWNERSHIP).

Commander BELLAIRS: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement in the Bolshevist Press in Russia that the Soviet Government has now abolished the rights to all private ownership in books; and whether he has any information as to why this paricular branch of private enterprise was hitherto spared.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): His Majesty's Government have no information about this particular decree of the Soviet Government.

Commander BELLAIRS: In the event of the Foreign Office finding out that the information published in the Bolshevist newspapers is correct that they have suppressed the rights of private ownership in books, will the Government look after the interests of Comrade Bernard Shaw?

PROPAGANDA.

Mr. MYERS: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his cognisance and approval that assistance was given last autumn by certain Government Departments to certain Russians in the preparation of imitations of a Moscow newspaper for use in propaganda in Russia against the Government of the Russian Soviet Republic; whether he knew at the time of his conversations with M. Kameneff that British officials were being employed and British public money expended on such propaganda; and whether the conduct of such propaganda is still part of the policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reply to each of the three parts of the question is in the negative. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is dealing with the matter in more detail in reply to the other question on the subject which the hon. Member has put down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the subsequent question will not be reached, will the right hon. Gentleman say that, if the facts are as stated in that question, the Government will deal with the matter very severely indeed, and how can we expect propaganda not to be engaged in in this country if we permit it ourselves abroad?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer will be circulated. There certainly is no public money involved.

ORGANISED LABOUR.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been, drawn to an appeal by the American Federation of Labour to organised labour in this and other countries to unite against the ruthless persecution and slaughter of labour unionists in Russia; and will he await the result of this appeal before committing this country to any course which would imply recognition of the Soviet Government, against which organised labour in Russia is in revolt, so far as is possible under the circumstances which exist there?

The PRIME MINISTER: No information on this subject has been received beyond what has appeared in the public Press.

REVOLTS.

Colonel NEWMAN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are in receipt of any information with regard to a reported attempt to overthrow the Communist Government in Moscow and Petrograd?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Reports similar to those which have appeared in the Press have reached H.M. representatives in the Baltic States to the effect that disorders have recently occurred in Moscow and Petrograd. It appears that in Moscow the trouble originated amongst the workmen, while in Petrograd it extended to the sailors and the soldiers of the Red Army. Later information tends to show that the revolts have for the present been suppressed by the military forces of the Soviet Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How many times has the Soviet Government fallen now?

Colonel NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that all that the opposition want is a Constituent Assembly for Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot add anything to what I have said.

WEYHILL AERODROME, ANDOVER.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that men employed in the building trade on housing schemes in the neighbourhood of Andover are being attracted from their employment by offers of work at more remunerative rates in connection with the rehabilitation of the aerodrome at Weyhill; if the latter work can be postponed until the housing difficulty has been overcome; will he give instructions that ex-service men only shall be engaged on the work so that housing can proceed simultaneously; and if he will ascertain from the Disposal Board the loss incurred by the delay in disposing of the materials of the Weyhill Aerodrome camp, the greater portion of which has been rendered valueless owing to exposure for two years since demobilisation.

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I am informed that only the approved trade union building rates obtain at the
Andover Aerodrome, and any known instance of the infringement of this practice should therefore be brought to notice. With regard to the second part, the work is necessary for the housing accommodation of Royal Air Force personnel, which would invalidate the suggested reason for postponement. And as to the last part of the question. I understand that the total amount of material declared surplus at present consists of one hut.

MOTOR LORRIES (SUBSIDY).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has now been decided to proceed no further with the War Office scheme of subsidising motor lorries in the event of their being required for purposes of war?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 114.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a register of motor lorries would be as effective and far more economical than the subsidy as at present proposed, he will reconsider the matter?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question and at the same time I will reply to Question number 114. I would refer the hon. Members to the replies already given to which there is nothing to add.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the Government consider the advisability of getting a register of these cars and commandeering them when they are wanted, instead of going to the whole expense of a Government subsidy?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will ascertain.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I have a question down. May I press for an answer? Surely registration is just as efficacious as a subsidy.

Viscount CURZON: Is not registration already provided for under the Motor Car Act?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: One registration is provided for under the Motor Car Act, but not the registration required by the War Office. The whole matter is receiving consideration, as I have already informed the House.

Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be sufficient to commandeer the motor-cars of people who have been convicted of offences against the Motor-Car Act.

DAYLIGHT SAVING ACT.

Major WHELER: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that practically all agricultural societies and organisations are opposed to the proposed continuance of the Daylight Saving Act for this year; and whether, even if he cannot consider the abolition of the Act, he will favourably consider a proposal to shorten its operation to the period frm 1st May to 31st August?

Mr. SHORTT: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers which I gave on Tuesday on this subject.

Mr. INSKIP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disastrous prolongation of the harvest in the Western Counties of Scotland owing to the operation of the Daylight Saving Act, and will he make inquiries of the farming interest in Galloway and the adjoining counties as to the effects of that Act?

Mr. SHORTT: That has all been done.

ADEN.

Major GLYN: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at as to whether the protectorate of Aden is to remain under the India Office and the Government of India or whether, under the present changed circumstances, the Colonial Office will assume responsibility?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on Monday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford.

Major GLYN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, pending the decision of the Cabinet concerning the Aden protectorate, urgent matters may be referred direct to London and not to the Government of India?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is under the Colonial Office.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Did not the Secretary of State for India inform me yesterday that the Government of India had not assented to the transfer to the Colonial Office, and that the matter was still under consideration at Delhi?

The PRIME MINISTER: I only know the decision of the Cabinet. Perhaps no reply had been received from the Government of India. I was not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

DISARMAMENT, GERMANY.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could lay upon the Table of the House a paper showing the amount of German field guns, machine guns, rifles, aeroplanes, motor transport wagons, army horses, and ammunition actually surrendered to the Allies since the Armistice; whether during the period I of surrender of these instruments of war any post-war weapons have been constructed; and, if so, to what extent?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the answer to this question is long and detailed I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It will not, therefore, be necessary to lay a paper upon the Table, as my hon. Friend suggests.

The following is the answer referred to:—

1. The following table shows the amount of German guns, machine guns, rifles, motor transport wagons, army horses and ammunition surrendered by the Germans since the Armistice up to 24th February, 1921.

(a) Guns.



Surrendered under the terms of the Armistice
5,000


Surrendered to Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control up to 24th February, 1921
37,313


Total
42,313


NOTE.—Included in this total are 6,000 guns under construction which have been destroyed.

2. With regard to construction of arms since the Armistice, no exact figures can be given, but the amount is so small as to be practically negligible.

3. The number of aeroplanes and sea planes surrendered to the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control since the Armistice is 15,368.

No military machines have been constructed during the period of surrender, but 59 aeroplanes designed for civil purposes have been manufactured.

Colonel LOWTHER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the disarmament of Germany, as stipulated by the Treaty of Versailles, has been duly carried out; whether he can state the number of German soldiers and sailors disbanded since the Armistice; if there is any late census return showing whether these masses of disbanded men have found industrial employment; and how many have drifted into bellicose bodies who, under the guise of police, reichswehr, cadetten corps, or Russian Reds, or other subtle misnomers, would, at a critical moment, form the nucleus of a redoubtable army?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to previous replies upon this subject. The estimated strength of the German Army at the date of the Armistice was 5,000,000; its present strength is approximately 100,000, and the number of sailors disbanded is about 156,000.

The present strength of the—


Reichswehr
…
100,000


Uniform Police
…
150,000


Plain Clothes Police
…
30,000


Gendarmerie
…
17,000

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement some time to-day with regard to the conference which is now taking place?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I propose to make a statement after questions.

Colonel LOWTHER: 47.
asked what steps have been taken by the Allies to curb the future military equipment of Germany, with a view to mitigating the danger of a German-Russian alliance?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the view of His Majesty's Government, ample safeguards have been taken by the Allies in the Treaty of Versailles and by provision of Article 213 of the Treaty.

EGYPT (MR. CHURCHILL'S VISIT).

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister on what date the Secretary of State for the Colonies proposes to leave this country for Egypt; what will be the composition of his staff; whether he proposes to meet Arab leaders with a view to consulting them; how long it will be necessary for him to remain in Egypt; what will be the approximate cost of the mission; what results are hoped for; and whether a full report will be presented to this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has already started. He is accompanied by six or seven officials from Middle East Department, Financial Branch of the War Office and Air Ministry. He does not expect to meet any Arab leaders. He hopes to remain only about ten days in Egypt and a few days in Palestine, and then to return to lay proposals before the Cabinet. The policy of the Government will then be declared to the House after Easter. The expenses will be regulated according to the usual scale for such missions.

CORN MEASURES.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware that by Magna Charta it was conceded to all free men of this realm that there be one measure of wine throughout the whole realm, and one measure of beer, and one measure of corn, and that it should be so regarding weights as regarding measures; whether he is aware that a great diversity of measures is in use for corn whereby many free men of the realm are often sorely perplexed and greatly hindered in their business; and whether the Government will take steps to ensure to the free men of the realm this ancient right of one measure for corn to which they are entitled under Magna Charta?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I have not had an opportunity of verifying my hon. Friend's quotation, but in any case I am advised that there is later legislation. An opportunity of considering this subject will arise in connection with the Bill, introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, which is now before the House.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that free men in this Realm are being charged 12½ groats for a noggin, and, further, is he aware that Magna Charta, dated 1215, laid down that "justice should be no longer delayed," whereas the Liquor Control Board was established in 1915, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that justice is no longer delayed in this respect.

Mr. BONAR LAW: Does my hon. and gallant Friend mean that beer is to be the same price as in 1215?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will a copy of this Act be laid on the Table?

SILVER COINAGE.

Sir C. OMAN: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the press of work at the Mint, which he declares to be the cause of the defective execution of the new silver coinage, is caused by an attempt to produce that coinage in haste; and whether there is any economic necessity for that haste since the fall in the value of silver to its present low figure?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The press of work at the Mint arises from the demand for copper coin and for War medals, as well as from the recoinage of silver. Additional difficulty arises from the fact that steel of the quality required for dies seems to be less easy to procure. I think it is very desirable that the re-coinage, which will in any case take several years, should proceed expeditiously.

Sir C. OMAN: Does the absence of good steel for the dies—which in many cases have cracked, and give an impression on only part of the new coins—have any effect on the other fault of this new coinage, which is owing to the want od skill in the gentleman who compose the base alloy? The surface flakes off in large patches. I have in my hand at the present moment a half-crown—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better exhibit that in the Lobby.

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Viscount CURZON: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many shares the British Government now holds in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; what is the-present value of the shares; for how long the Government will retain this holding in shares; if it is the intention of the Government to dispose of the shares in any way; and, if so, what action they propose to take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government holds in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company 5,000,000 ordinary shares, 1,000 preferences shares, and 199,000 debentures. There is no market quotation for the ordinary shares. The Government has no intention of disposing of its holding.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Have the Government yet received any dividends on these shares?

Mr. DEVLIN: Does anyone receive dividends on anything?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I am told we have received dividends. I think we have reinvested some of them.

STATIONERY OFFICE (NORTHERN AREA BRANCH).

Major NALL: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the large
stocks of stationery which it is intended to store at Hollinwood, near Manchester, have already been printed; why it is necessary to create this stock; how many hundreds of tons of paper will be required to justify the use of these premises for so small a service; and when does he intend to reduce the Stationery Department to its pre-War dimensions?

Mr. BALDWIN: No new stocks of paper or printed forms have been created by the transfer of the Northern Area branch of the Stationery Office from Manchester to Hollinwood. The Stationery Office in Manchester has been in existence since 1916, when the work of supplying paper, stationery, office requisites, office machinery, and of distributing printed forms and books to Government offices (now some 20,000) in the northern area of England and in Wales, was transferred from London to Manchester. The stocks of paper, forms, books and office supplies held at Hollinwood at the present moment are estimated at 5,000 tons, comprising a variety of over 41,000 articles. The number of requisitions received is about 300,000 a year. In comparison with similar work required for the northern area when formerly executed in London, the following main grounds of economy were anticipated and have been realized:

(1) Cheaper transit from paper-mill to the warehouse.
(2) Cheaper distribution to the centres of population in the northern area.
(3) Cheaper printing through competition of northern and southern printers due to the elimination of double handling of paper.

As regards the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Epsom Division on the 1st instant.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON CONFERENCE.

GERMAN PROPOSALS REJECTED.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the position
created by the rejection of the German counter-proposals at the recent discussions of the Supreme Council in Paris?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Allied delegations were unanimously of opinion that Dr. Simons' proposals did not afford any basis for examination or discussion, and that they fell so far short of the German obligations under the Treaty as to constitute a mockery of its provisions.
They interpreted these proposals in the light of declarations made in Germany which were tantamount to an official repudiation by the German Government of their country's responsibility for the War.
They took into account the various respects in which Germany had already failed to execute the Treaty. They attributed these failures and the inadequate character of the German proposals for reparation either to a deliberate intention to evade or whittle away the Treaty or to the weakness of the German Government in the face of the public opinion in that country. Whatever the explanation may be, the Allies felt it was essential in the interests of permanent peace that they should take firm measures to convince Germany that whilst all fair consideration will be given to her difficulties, the Treaty must be respected.
We intimated that unless we hear by Monday that Germany is either prepared to accept the Paris decision or to submit proposals which will, in other ways which are equally satisfactory, discharge her obligations under the Treaty of Versailles (subject to the concessions made in the Paris proposals), we shall as from that date take the following course under the Treaty of Versailles.
The Allies are agreed:—

(1) To occupy the towns of Duisburg, Ruhrort, and Düsseldorf, on the right bank of the Rhine.
(2) To obtain powers from their respective Parliaments requiring their nationals to pay a certain proportion of all payments due to Germany on German goods to their several Governments, such proportion to be retained on account of reparations.

(That is in respect of goods purchased either in this country or in any other Allied country from Germany.)

(3) (a) The amount of the duties collected by the German Custom houses on the external frontiers of the occupied territories to be paid to the Reparations Commission.
(b) These duties to continue to be levied in accordance with the German tariff.
(c) A line of Custom houses to be temporarily established on the Rhine and at the boundary of the Têtes de Ponts occupied by the Allied troops; the tariff to be levied on this line, both on the entry and export of goods, to be determined by the Allied High Commission of the Rhine territory in conformity with the instructions of the Allied Governments.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the recalcitrant attitude of the German delegates is largely due to the ex-Prime Minister having publicly stated at Penistone that Germany would not be able to pay more than £2,000,000,000 as the total amount of War indemnity?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself said that Germany and the other Powers stumbled into the War—[The PRIME MINISTER indicated dissent]—and has he not in this House spoken of the great necessity of getting some payment out of Germany rather than nothing at all?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have often stated that the demands made on Germany must be limited by her capacity to pay. The proposals of Dr. von Simons fall, in our judgment, far short, lamentably short, and I should say absurdly short of Germany's capacity to pay. She has not, as I have pointed out in the statement which will probably be in the Press to-morrow, taxed herself up to the limit of the taxation of France and Great Britain, and we cannot possibly allow the burdens of the victors to be heavier than those of the vanquished.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what business he proposes to take next week?

Mr. B0NAR LAW: On Monday-Supplementary Estimates, beginning with Irish Supplementaries, in the following order: Constabulary, Chief Secretary's salary, Prisons, etc.

On Tuesday—Coal Mines Decontrol Bill, Second Reading, and further Supplementary Estimates.

On Wednesday—Civil Service Vote on Account.

On Thursday—Civil Service Vote on Account, Report, and Supplementary Estimates if time permits.

On Friday—Supplementary Estimates.

To-morrow, I shall move to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule till the end of the financial year, not with a view to late sittings; in fact, I hope it may never be necessary to sit beyond midnight, if so late.

I think it right to add that it may be necessary to ask the House to sit on Saturday next week.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask whether, in regard to the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, the right hon. Gentleman has any ground of complaint in regard to the Opposition, or any other Members of this House, as to undue discussion of the financial proposals before the House, and if this proposal comes on to-morrow and is carried, will he undertake not to proceed to-morrow beyond five o'clock, as a very large number of Members have made arrangements for the week-end, and I can assure him, as we have done in the past, that there will be no unnecessary discussion on anything proposed.

Mr. B0NAR LAW: The Motion I propose to move to-morrow is simply to assist getting the business done, and I do not make any complaint as to the discussion which has taken place to date. I believe myself that the House will find the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule will enable them, by sitting an hour longer occasionally, to save half a day's discussion. With regard to to-morrow, I think it is only right that notice should be given of such a change, and I do not propose that it should take effect to-morrow.

Lord R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take all the stages of the Coal Mines Decontrol Bill on Tuesday, or only the Second Reading?

Mr. B0NAR LAW: That is all I expect next week.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of meeting at 12 mid-day, instead of suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That question has often been raised, but I think it has always been disapproved by the House. In addition, I do not see how it is possible for Members who are on Committees, or those who have definite work to do in the morning, to attend the House at 12 noon.

Ordered,—That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act (]920) Amendment Bill and on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL,

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 19–20," presented by Sir HERBERT NIELD; supported by Colonel Morden, Mr. Lort-Williams, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Sir Ernest Wild, Captain Viscount Curzon, and Mr. Lane-Mitchell; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

CHILDREN BILL,

"to amend the Children Ace, 1908, in respect of the expenses of reformatory and industrial schools," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Mr. Munro, Sir Ernest Pollock, and Sir John Baird: to be road a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

POLICE PENSIONS BILL,

"to consolidate and amend the law respecting the retirement, pensions, allowances, and gratuities of members of police forces in Great Britain, and their widows and children," presented by Mr. SHORTT; supported by Mr. Munro, Sir Ernest Pollock, and Sir John Baird; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Second Report brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 40.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the introduction of proportional representation in local elections; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill [Lords.]

Unemployment Insurance Act (1920) Amendment Bill,—That they agree with the Amendment made by the Commons to one of their Amendments and do not insist upon their Amendments with which the Commons have disagreed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

4.0 P.M.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Perhaps I may be allowed to express my thanks to the Members of the other House for the immediate consideration which they have given to the Unemployment Insurance Act Amendment Bill, which passed its Third Reading in this House on Thursday. Like my hon. Friends and colleagues in this House, the Noble Lords recognise the extreme urgency of the problem, and are anxious that the alleviations contained in the Bill shall be immediately available for those who need it, and are qualified to obtain it. Most of the Amendments which we are now asked to consider are either drafting Amendments or are designed to express the intentions of the Bill more clearly than its text did when it left us. I shall ask the House to agree to those Amendments. They were, indeed, accepted in another place on the suggestion of the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government. There are two or three other Amendments of substance to which, again, I shall ask the House to agree. There are, however, three Amendments which substantially affect the practice and policy of industrial unemployment insurance as we have conceived it and followed it since 1911. To those I shall be compelled to ask the House to disagree. With this preamble, let me take the Amendments seriatim.
The first Amendment—in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "on" ["from on and after the third day of July"]—is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the increased contributions will commence from the beginning of the insurance year 1921–22. They will begin to be payable as from 4th July next. I shall ask the House to agree to that Amendment. The second Amendment—in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), after the
word "which" ["unemployment benefit to which any person is entitled"] to insert the words, "having regard to the proportion of benefit to contributions fixed by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act—again is a drafting Amendment. It limits the benefit to one week for every six contributions paid. I shall ask the House to agree to that Amendment. The next Amendment—in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "commencement of the Principal Act and before," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Seventh day of November, Nineteen hundred and twenty and"—is also a drafting Amendment and is merely intended to make the Clause read clearly. The next Amendment—in Clause 3, Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "those" ["in the aggregate of those periods"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the special"—is a drafting Amendment necessary to avoid the use of the word "periods" in a different sense from its use previously in the same Sub-section. The next Amendment—in Clause 3, Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "periods" ["his failure to be employed for the periods required"], and to insert instead thereof the word "period"—is a verbal Amendment made necessary by a previous Amendment.
The next Amendment—in Clause 3, at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words, "Paragraph (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section Seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect and"—is a very serious Amendment to which I must call serious attention. From the beginning of unemployment insurance in 1911 there have been laid down statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit. They are to be found in Section Seven of the main Act. Shortly, a person seeking benefit must have paid the necessary contributions, must be unemployed, must not have exhausted his right to benefit, and must be capable of, and available for, work, but unable to obtain suitable work. In the same Section Seven of the main Act the conditions are laid down under which he may decline an offer of work and yet not forfeit benefit. The particular condition which it is here proposed shall cease to exist is that which provides that he may decline without forfeiture of benefit:
(b) An offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower or on conditions
less favourable than three which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
If this Amendment of the main Act were made, a man would be disqualified from benefit if he declined a job, which was otherwise suitable, on the ground that the wages and conditions were less favourable than those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed. Of course, he could accept the job if he liked—that would be a matter for him—but, as the main Act stands, he would not jeopardise his benefit if he refused to accept it. Under this Amendment he would jeopardise his benefit if he refused to accept it. I think I have made that perfectly clear, and that Amendment we cannot accept. To withhold benefit from men who refuse work at rates less than those settled by collective bargainings would be a reversal of the accepted policy of the Government in reference to the wages question. You cannot use a compulsory contributory insurance Act for this purpose. It must be remembered that the employment exchanges and the local employment committees are not administering Poor Law relief or charity, but are administering an Insurance Act to which working people, with others, are compelled to contribute I warn the House that any suspicion that you are using this Act in such a way as to influence wage standards would never do. Curiously enough, if this Amendment were adopted, and a man therefore made to lose his benefit because he refused an offer of work at a rate of wage lower than that which he habitually obtained in his own district, no such disability would fall upon him in respect of a similar refusal if the job offered were outside his own district, because, while it is proposed to strike out the paragraph which I have just quoted, the next paragraph in the main Act remains untouched, and a man could refuse without forfeiture of benefit.
(c) An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and of employed or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in that district by good employers.
Possibly pressure of time is responsible for the striking out of one proviso and the leaving in of the other, but mani-
festly it would make confusion worse confounded, and in any case I am bound to ask the House, for the reasons which I have stated, to reject the Amendment. The next Amendment—

Earl WINTERTON: Might I point out the inconvenience of the course which the right hon. Gentleman is taking. He is explaining each Amendment now, instead of giving us an opportunity of debating them on their merits as they come on? It means a much longer debate in explaining them twice over.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I thought that I should less meet the convenience of the House if I explained them one by one, but each of them will have to be put from the Chair.

Earl WINTERTON: I quite understand that, but it means the right hon. Gentleman speaking again.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take care not to repeat anything that I have said.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will repeat himself.

Dr. MACNAMARA: How happy I should be with either of my hon. Friends. The next Amendment—in Clause 3, Sub-section (3), after the word "Section" ["no person shall be entitled to benefit under this Section"] to insert the words "whose wife or husband resident in the same house is in receipt of wages, annuity, or other income amounting to more than double unemployment benefit at the full rate, or"—again is a very serious Amendment to put in an Amending Insurance Bill. The effect would be that when a man and his wife, both insured persons, were living in the same house, and one was in receipt of an income of over 40s. a week, the other, though unemployed, would be disqualified from benefit. It must be remembered that this is an Insurance Bill guaranteeing a personal benefit for a personal contribution, and, of course, the contributions have been paid for years on that basis. I venture to suggest that to impose this disqualification in respect of persons who, though married, are both operatives and intend to continue operatives, would be dangerously near a breach of faith, and, even if you could do so, it is only proposed in
respect of this particular relationship. There would be brothers and sisters in the one house who would not be under any disqualification such as is here proposed to impose upon a man and his wife. There is a case upon which I should like to say a word or two. It is the case of a woman who gives up employment on her marriage. Under the main Act that woman for the first year after she gives up employment can apply for benefit, if she has contributions to her credit, if she wants work and if she is available for work and unable to obtain it; but it is the duty of the Employment Exchange to ascertain whether, in fact, that is her position and intention. The necessity to do this becomes all the greater under this Amending Act, because, during the present emergency, longer periods of benefit are possible than usual, and receivable under much easier qualifying conditions.
We propose to make it possible, under this Bill, for unemployed persons to receive two periods of benefit of 16 weeks each, up to the close of June, 1922, if they can show 20 weeks of employment in an insured trade during 1920. It really would not be fair, I suggest, under an Unemployment Insurance Act, for a married woman, who had definitely on her marriage given up employment, to claim this emergency benefit on the basis of the 20 weeks' employment during last year, if, in fact, she was not available for work, and had no intention or necessity of returning to it. The Bill, in fact, enables this claim to be tested. It proposes in Clause 3, Sub-section (3), that no person is to be entitled to benefit under that Section—the Emergency Section—unless it is proved that he or she is genuinely seeking whole-time employment, and I shall propose to call the attention of those who will have to administer this new measure to that condition. The next Amendment in Sub-section (3) is to leave out the words "the foregoing provision" and insert the words "this Section." This is a consequential Amendment upon the structure of the Clause as amended in this House. I propose to ask the House to accept that. The following two Amendments are drafting Amendments, which I shall ask the House to accept.
The first Amendment in Clause 4 is to insert after the word "shall" ["no person shall receive"] in the first Sub-
section, the words "within any insurance year." That is merely to make it clear that the insured person would be eligible for 26 weeks' benefit within an insurance year. The next Amendment is to insert after the word "shall" ["shall have effect"] the words "not operate during the special periods, and shall thereafter." The permanent extension of the maximum benefit in a year is from 15 to 26 weeks, but that will take place not until after the emergency period after June, 1922, and this Amendment makes that clear. The object, of the first Amendment in Sub-section (1) of Clause 9, namely, to leave out "thirty-first day of October" and to insert "second day of November" is to make the first 16 weeks coincide with the insurance benefit pay week. 31st October is a Monday, and it is intended that the special period shall not terminate until 2nd November, which is the following Wednesday. The succeeding Amendment is consequential. The next Amendment is to insert a new Sub-section:
(2) In the application of this Act to Ireland references to a court of referees 6hall be substituted for references to a local employment committee.
There are no local employment committees in Ireland, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide that the function placed on the Committee under Clause 3 should in Ireland be discharged by the Court of Referees constituted under Section 13 of the principal Act. Then we come to an Amendment to insert at the end of Sub-section (3) the following:
or so as to render it necessary for the Minister at any time before the third day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, to require any association to make for the purposes of proviso (a) to Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen of the principal Act any greater or further provision for unemployment benefit than would have been required to be made for those purposes if this Act had not passed.
Under Section 17 of the main Act, trade unions and friendly societies may become agents for the administration of benefits on the condition, amongst others, that they add to the benefit from their own fund. Where they are doing so, they made certain rules, and fixed certain subscriptions in advance of certain obligations. This Bill, by increasing benefits, and increasing the period for which benefit may be drawn, materially adds to their obliga-
tions in this respect, and we think they should have reasonable time in which to effect necessary alterations. We propose to give them that time up to the end of October next; that is to say, they can then shoulder the obligation in respect of the larger benefit, or rather the larger amount of benefit, which will be now payable under this Act. The next Amendment in Sub-section (5) is to leave out the words "Thursday next after the passing thereof" and to insert "third day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one." If the Clause stands as at present, it will have the effect of bringing the Act into operation on Thursday, 10th March. It is most desirable that this Act should come into operation to-day, if possible, in order to enable payment of benefit at the earliest possible moment to ex-service men and civilians who have exhausted their right of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is necessary, therefore, to provide specifically in the Act that it shall come into operation on Thursday, 3rd March.
The following Amendment in the same Sub-section is to leave out "thirtieth day of June" and insert "sixth day of July." As the Bill left this House, the Act would have terminated as regards the increase of benefits and contributions at the end of the insurance year 1923–24, but, had that stood, this Amendment would have been necessary, because 6th July, and not 30th June, would have been the end of the insurance year, but another Amendment in another place proposes to make the Act, as regards the increased rate of benefit and contribution, come to an end in 1923 instead of 1924. The corresponding date in that case at the end of the insurance year, 1923, is 1st July, and not 6th July. I therefore propose to amend the Amendment made in another place by substituting the 1st July for the 6th July. As regards the Amendment of the Lords to leave out "twenty-four" ["nineteen hundred and twenty-four"] and insert "twenty-three," this is the Amendment to which I was referring, and, so far as the Government are concerned, they will assent to it. We have no objection to bringing the Act to an end in June, 1923, because in all probability it will be necessary, as circumstances arise, to overhaul the Act by that time, and therefore we propose to accept that.
Coming to the Schedules, the Lords have inserted an Amendment to Section 7 of the main Act by substituting for the words "suitable employment" the words "employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit." One of the conditions for the receipt of benefit laid down is that he is capable of and available for work, but unable to obtain suitable employment. It is pro posed that that should read as follows:
That he is capable of and available for work, but unable to obtain employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit.
That is the effect of the proposed Amendment in Par. (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 7. There are two changes in the main Act proposed. The phrase "on reasonable terms," raising the wages conditions laid down for 1911 onwards, I have already dealt with, and I have nothing to add. The phrase "for which he is physically and otherwise fit" varies the general interpretation which has been given to the words "suitable employment" in the main Act. "Suitable employment" means, to put it quite broadly and generally, employment similar to that for which the man has been trained, to which he is accustomed, and which he will, presumably, again follow when he returns to employment. Here we have got a new definition, that he must be physically fit; that is to say, a watch and clock maker, being offered a job as a shipyard labourer, and being "physically and otherwise fit," could only refuse it under risk of losing his unemployment benefit. I cannot agree to depart from so well established and so sound a rule as the interpretation of "suitable employment."

Colonel NEWMAN: I suppose "he" includes "she"?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, certainly; in this association anyhow. The last Amendment is a verbal Amendment. I have now gone through the Lords Amendments, and I will take care, as they arise, not to repeat anything I have said. I just want to make one broad comment on the whole matter. In this Bill, largely by drawing on the accumulated Insurance Fund in order to meet a time of grave unemployment, we are substantially increasing benefit, both as regards amounts and periods for which it may be drawn, and during the emergency period we are
necessarily easing the qualification precedent to eligibility for benefit. I have listened to the Debates with great care, and also noted very carefully the reasons for which a number of questions to me have been framed, and what emerges is this: There is a feeling that, in some cases, people, and especially people not altogether dependent upon themselves for maintenance, seek to avail themselves of benefit, without making any very great effort to secure work. If that is so, apart altogether from the personal demoralisation involved, it does real prejudice in the public mind to those who are most fully entitled to seek the assistance of the Unemployed Insurance Act, by casting upon them the suggestion that they are out for a dole. Further, the benefit provided for the emergency period has only been made possible by drawing heavily upon the accumulated balance of the Insurance Fund. If unemployment continues grave for a lengthy period, the provision made for it is bound to deplete the fund most seriously. While, therefore, the assistance rendered by the Act must be immediately available in every proper case, it is only just to all concerned that every care should be taken to see that no reproach lies against those who are charged with administering it of laxity, or failure to prescribe reasonable tests to see that the contributions of hard-working people, of employers, and of the State are thereby not dissipated. For the avoidance of that, I shall propose, in bringing the new Act into operation, to remind all those charged with the administration of it of the precise terms of eligibility for benefit, the reasonable conditions which have to be satisfied before it is payable, and the machinery of appeal freely to hand for the protection of any person who may consider his or her claim for assistance under the Act has not been fairly met, I think it necessary before sitting down to tell the House I propose to do that.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Minister of Labour one question. Assuming a man or woman was insured under the old Act, when they have exhausted the ninety days, will they be entitled to another eight weeks between then and July, and then another six weeks between July and June, 1921?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If they had twenty weeks' employment to their credit during 1920 they would be entitled by reason of that qualification to sixteen weeks' benefit up to the end of October, and by the same qualification to another sixteen weeks up to the end of June, 1921.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions os to contributions.)

(1) Prom on and after the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, the contributions payable under the principal Act in respect of employed persons by those persons and their employers shall be at the rates set out in the First Schedule to this Act instead of at the rates specified in Part I of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, and the contribution to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament shall, instead of being a contribution at the rates specified in Part II of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, be at a rate equal to one-fourth of the aggregate amount of the contributions paid in respect of the employed person by himself and his employer, and Sub-sections (3) and (7) of Section five of the principal Act shall have effect accordingly.
(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of unemployment benefit to which any person is entitled at any time after the second day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, no account shall be taken of any benefit which may have been received by that person at any time in respect of the period between the commencement of the principal Act and before the third day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and there shall be deemed to have been paid previously to that date in the case of every person who is an insured contributor at that date, twenty-five contributions in addition to the contributions actually paid in respect of him:

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "on" ["from on and after the third day of July"].

In Sub-section (2), after the word "which" ["which any person is entitled at any time"], insert
having regard to the proportion of benefit to contributions fixed by paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act.

Leave out the words "commencement of the principal Act and before," and insert "the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty, and."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Amendments as to conditions for receipt of benefit.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every person who has been engaged at any time in each of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in any employment which made him, or which would, if the principal Act had been in force throughout the year nineteen hundred and twenty, have made him an employed person within the meaning of that Act and who satisfies the other conditions prescribed by this Section shall, notwithstanding that the first statutory condition may not have been fulfilled in his case, and notwithstanding Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act, but subject to the other provisions of the said Act as amended by this Act, be entitled to receive in each of the special periods hereinafter in this Act mentioned unemployment benefit for periods not exceeding in the aggregate in each of those periods, sixteen weeks, and for the purpose of qualifying any person to receive benefit up to the aggregate amounts aforesaid within each of the special periods, but for no other purpose, there shall be treated as having been paid in respect of him such number of contributions as are sufficient to qualify him as aforesaid:

Provided that no person who holds, or has at any time held, a certificate of exemption under Section three of the principal Act shall be entitled to benefit under this Section.

(2) In the application of the preceding Sub-section to persons formerly engaged in war service within the meaning of this Act a period of not less than ten separate calendar weeks shall be substituted for a period of not less than twenty separate calendar weeks, and if in any particular case a person who has been engaged in war service satisfies the local employment committee that his failure to be employed for the periods required by this Section was in consequence of the present war and duo to circumstances not within his own control or, in the case of a disabled person within the meaning of this Act, was due to his disablement, that person may, if the local employment committee so recommend, be treated for the purpose of this Section as though he had been engaged for the period aforesaid in such employment as aforesaid, although he has not in fact been so engaged.

(3) No person shall be entitled to benefit under this Section unless he proves that he is—

(a) Normally in employment such as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act;
(b) Genuinely seeking whole-time employment but unable to obtain such employment.

If any question arises as to whether any person satisfies the foregoing requirements, the question shall be decided by the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, refer any such question to the local employment committee for their recommendation.

Where a question is referred to a local employment committee under the foregoing provision, the committee may make it the condition of their recommendation that the case of the claimant shall be reconsidered by the committee on the expiration of any specified period, or that the maximum aggregate period during which the claimant may receive benefit shall be reduced to a period less than the maximum period allowed by this Act.

Local employment committees in the exercise of their powers under this Sub-section shall have regard to such directions as the Minister may prescribe for their guidance.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "those" ["in each of those periods, sixteen weeks"], and insert "the special."

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "periods" ["for the periods required by this Section"], and insert "period."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the beginning of Sub-section (3) insert
Paragraph (6) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, and.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment appears to me to be a privileged Amendment as it alters the statutory conditions for receiving unemployment benefit. The question is, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir F. BANBURY: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether a privilege Amendment is out of order if that Amendment does not increase the charge?

Mr. SPEAKER: According to the precedents the Lords are not entitled, where a sum of public money is involved, to alter the conditions (either by way of limiting them or by way of increasing them) under which such moneys become payable to those who are entitled to receive them. It is open of course to the House to waive its privilege if it is so desired, at all events the Amendment is open for discussion.

Sir F. BANBURY: I remember one or two occasions when the House has waived its privilege, notwithstanding that the Lords had put in an Amendment which is a privileged Amendment. This House has consented to accept such an Amend-
ment, and I am very sorry that the Government have made up their minds that they will not agree to this Amendment. I will endeavour as shortly as possible to give my reasons to the House for thinking that it would have been more advisable, in the interests of the unemployed, in the interests of the country, and also in the interests of the taxpayer, to have agreed to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour said, in giving his reasons why he did not propose to agree to this Amendment, "It is not a charitable institution, it is not relief from the Poor Law. It is a contribution that is due to the person who asks for it, because that person has subscribed a certain sum." I think I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said, "If the person had satisfied the conditions of the Act."

Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it would not be fair to put in such conditions as are proposed in the Amendment. At first I thought there was something in that argument, but on thinking it over I came to the conclusion that with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman there was really nothing in it at all. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that, in the event of a man being out of employment, and being offered sitable employment and declining such employment, he could not obtain benefit. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman himself has put in conditions, and if those conditions have once been put in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a right which cannot be denied to the people who had subscribed, falls to the ground.
After all, what is it that the Lords propose to do under this Amendment? They propose to do this. Where a man—it does not matter what sum I mention, but supposing for the sake of argument that we take 40s. a week, a figure which has been mentioned on various occasions by hon. Gentlemen opposite—where a man has been in receipt of 40s. a week let us suppose that the particular work in which he had been employed comes to an end. The employer for some reason or other cannot employ that man any longer at 40s. a week. Suppose he is offered much
the same sort of employment by another employer in the same district at 35s. a week and he says, "No, I am not going to take that. I prefer to take 20s. a week and to do nothing on the chance that I may be able eventually to get the 40s. per week which I had before." Because that man is obstinate and because he refuses to take other employment which is offered him, the taxpayer has to put his hand in his pocket and to provide for that man a certain proportion of the 20s. a week. That is an extremely bad principle to set up. That is a temptation to men not to work unless they can get exactly the work they like at exactly the remuneration they like. All of us, what ever our rank, have, I suppose, at some time of our lives, been engaged in a profession or a business or some sort of employment for which we have had to take remuneration which we have thought inadequate and we have all had to do things which we would much rather not have done. But to pick out this particular moment when, as I have said before, it is absolutely necessary if this country is ever to recover its mercantile and financial prosperity that everyone must lower his standard of living, the men must accept lower wages, and profits must also be lowered, to come forward and refuse to accept an Amendment which acts in that direction is, I think, a very fatal and regrettable policy. There cannot be any question that all wages must come down. If I am right in that, what would then be the position? A man who has been receiving 40s. per week is offered 35s. per week. Supposing he refuses that wage because he has been in the habit in the past of getting 40s. Wages come down and the wages that he would have got had there been nothing in the way of unemployment insurance would have amounted to 30s. per week. What would happen then? Is such a man to be allowed to say, "No, because I once got 40s., and because living has gone down—"

Dr. MACNAMARA: "Or would have obtained;"—that is the last part.

Sir F. BANBURY: Or would have obtained?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Had he continued to be so employed.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then, as I understand it, there is a little safeguard, but
it is a safeguard which I think would be very difficult to maintain. It would necessitate a large number of officials to investigate every single case of out-of-work donation. There would have to be an investigation every time there was a change in the rate of wages, although I admit that, on the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman, it is not quite so bad as I thought. I must, however, again emphasise that I think it is a fatal policy to persist in allowing a man to discriminate and to obtain relief because he does not choose to accept wages which, after all, are above the sum which he would receive from out-of-work donation.

Mr. CLYNES: I hope that the House will support the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour in his proposal to disagree with the Amendment. With all respect, I take leave to say that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has not on this occasion revealed his usual knowledge either of human nature or of industry in the case which he has presented in support of his attitude.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say that it must not be forgotten that this will lead to a very large increase in the number of people receiving this out-of-work donation and will eventually cause the fund to become bankrupt.

Mr. CLYNES: I take exception to the right hon. Baronet's suggestion that to disagree with this Amendment will cause more trouble and more unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman has preferred to state the cases of men receiving unemployment benefit of 40s. per week. That is rather an exaggeration, because the actual benefit is not 40s. a week.

Sir F. BANBURY: I said the wages were 40s. a week, not the benefit.

Mr. CLYNES: I understood the right hon. Baronet to say that the benefit was 40s. a week.

Sir F. BANBURY: I took the figure of 40s. because that has been very often used for certain purposes by hon. Members opposite, but it might have been 50s. or even £5 or even, what the miners get, £700 a year. It would be all the same thing.

Major WATTS MORGAN: The railway director gets £2,000 a year!

Mr. CLYNES: The sum of 40s. was a figure which I had in mind in relation to the benefit to be paid. That is what I understand the right hon. Baronet to say. It may be that his argument that wages will have to come down is correct; I hope not. But still, if eventually there is a variation, I suggest that any variation in remuneration or any reduction in wages should come as a result of mutual agreement and as a result of compromise and the acceptance of overwhelming facts. I hope wages will not have to be reduced, but if there is to be a change it should not be brought about by the process which the right hon. Gentleman has advocated, that is, by compelling a workman out of a job to take less wages than he has been accustomed to work for, or, if he refuses, to force him to take less because you deprive him of his unemployment benefit. That is exerting an inhuman pressure upon him if he does not consent to accept the lower rate of pay. That is a process which is not likely to benefit industry or create a better feeling between employers and employed. I ask the House particularly to go back to the central argument used by the right hon. Gentleman who explained the purpose of this Amendment and its meaning. I think the case he made out is sufficient to secure for it unanimous acceptance. It is that no variation by Amendment in the insurance law should be made in order to completely upset existing customs and trade conditions in regard to wage questions.
1 would also ask the House to remember that most of the money which the unemployed workers receive as unemployment pay comes not from the State but from a joint contribution made by employers and employed, and I think you can trust them to see that there is very little malingering, and where a man is suitable for the work he ought to take it, provided he can get the wages paid to his mates for similar work in similar districts. At the present time, unfortunately, there are many influences at work to cause reductions in wages, and we cannot help it. I merely point to the fact that influences of this kind are operating because of the conditions of unemployment and the dread of even further unemployment, and these are having the effect of causing a reduction in wages here and there. In some cases they are due to what may be termed the
one-sided pressure of employers of labour, and in other cases they appear to be due to mutual arrangements made between employers and employed. Of all times this is the wrong time for the House of Commons to be a party to using further influences to reduce wages, and the House can well realise what effect would be produced on the public mind by Parliament appearing to take the side of the employer when such a large number of workers are in such a state of distress because of unemployment. I think a case has been made out on the general grounds of wages, but I will now take the other grounds. Supposing you have forced a man by sheer pressure of hunger, and by the threat to withhold his pay, to take a job against the will of his mates. What have you done? You have only added to your troubles, and you have taken the first step towards causing greater dissatisfaction, leading probably to stoppages or strikes. Not a single good reason can be adduced for importing into this Bill an Amendment so foreign to the real purpose of the measure, and for these reasons I trust the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the same ruling you have given, applies to the other Lords Amendment on the Paper substituting the words "employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit."

Mr. SPEAKER: No. I do not propose to treat that as a privileged Amendment. My view is that the Amendment made is merely a definition of what is "suitable employment."

Mr. BALFOUR: I understand that unless we resolve to waive the question of privilege we can come to no other determination other than that of rejecting the Amendment. In my view the Lords have taken a right and proper action to assist in the solution in the present pressing unemployment problem. It is owing to the fact that at the present moment the unemployment benefit, added to that received from trade unions that probably such a sum of money is being received that we find a great many men, particularly young men from 18 to 22, have a sufficient sum not only for maintenance but for pleasure, and so long as that condition of things con-
tinues we shall not get rid of the unemployment problem. As far as my own personal view is concerned, while I would go to great lengths to do anything to solve this problem or to vote the necessary sums of money to relieve this, I am personally convinced, being in close contact with trade and industry in all parts of the country, that we are now doing the wrong thing in the interests of the working men. These men will accept these sums as long as they can take them, and they will find no suitable employment; in fact they will decline to take employment which is suitable, and they will make out that the employment is not suitable. I do not think it is possible to find any hon. Member more deeply concerned than myself at the present condition, or who is ready to make greater efforts towards the solution of the problem. But just as I am convinced that we ought to take strong measures, I believe this is utterly the wrong way to do it, and I think we should agree to the Lords Amendment on this occasion.

Earl WINTERTON: There is no doubt whatever that this is a most important matter, and I am rather glad that there has been an opportunity of discussing it. We have had a most interesting speech from the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Clynes), and we have had a most sincere and carefully thought-out speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Speaking as one who does not happen to be a large employer, I wish to protest against any suggestion that these matters can be settled solely as between employers of labour and labour and those who represent them in this House. The public as a whole has a right to interest themselves in this case. I hope more of those who are neither employers of labour nor direct representatives of organised labour will take part in this Debate, because the people of the country as a whole are just as much interested as labour.
This is a matter which affects the interests of the country as a whole and cuts across it in two ways. In the first place financially, as affecting the taxpayers; and in the second place morally, because of the considerations put forward by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Balfour). I think the Government still show rather too much of a tendency when they have to decide
between conflicting views to adopt the line of least resistance which is put forward by the Labour party. I think the statement just made by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Balfour) is one of the most important I have heard made in this House this Session, if it is correct. He is a large employer of labour, and he says, and the same charge is being made very widely in other directions, that the direct moral effect of unemployment insurance is to prevent the workers of this country realising the position.

Mr. WIGNALL: That is not true.

Earl WINTERTON: The Members of the Labour party are rather inclined to get indignant when anything is said contrary to their views. I am not attacking the hon. Member opposite, but the statement has been made here and outside, and it is important that there ought to be some Commission to inquire into the question whether it is a fact that there are young people who are willing to foster the continuance of trade depression caused in many cases by the high rate of wages, because personally they are contented with what they can get out of the State in unemployment benefit. I am sure Members of the Labour party would be the first to recognise the seriousness of that statement, and if it is true it must mean the complete end of the supremacy of British industries. A statement of that nature is so disturbing that I want to press unon the Government the necessity of having the question investigated. That is just the principle of this Amendment.
5.0 P.M.
One of the disadvantages we always suffer from in discussing Lords Amendments on one of these Bills is that we are generally told that the matter is urgent, and that it is not opposed by people outside. Then hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches get up and say they will not be responsible for what may happen outside if a proposal of this kind is opposed. I am sure they make those statements in all sincerity, but I must say that, in my view, it is a great disadvantage that we have to discuss these matters under the plea of urgency and the threat of what may happen outside. We are dealing with a very important principle in this Amendment. The reason why I must give my support to the Government is that, after all, the whole
basis of unemployment insurance, as laid down in this Act, is based upon the trade union system. I know it would be out of order to discuss that point. What the House did when we passed the original Act was to stabilise the collective bargaining system, and the State recognises it as the means through which unemployment might be dealt with. That being so, I feel we have got to stick to it. The whole principle is based on the trade union system, but having said that, how much longer are we going to maintain that system in view of the menace to the whole of industry, I am not prepared to say. That is a matter for employers and employed to consider.
We have heard a great deal of talk this afternoon about the question of reducing wages. The Leader of the Labour party made no reference to what is going on in every other country. I understand there is not a country in the world where wages are not coming down. I hear they are coming down by leaps and bounds in America. If that is so it seems to me they are bound to come down in this country. Economic fact is stronger than any of the theories we hold, whether we are employers or employed, and if wages are coming down in every country in the world, obviously they will have to come down in this country, otherwise things cannot go on. But I do not think that really this particular Amendment much affects the question. In view of the fact that the whole system is based upon the trade union system, and in view of the fact that there would be a danger of this Amendment, if it is agreed to, being used to break the power of trade unions, which may be a good thing or may be a bad thing. I shall support the Government. But I do view with considerable alarm the line which always appears to be taken by the Government in these matters—the line of least resistance—by agreeing with views put forward, in all sincerity, as I believe, by the Labour party, which seem to lead to no sort of finality, which do not seem to really deal with the main question, and which I think sooner or later will bring matters to a crisis. I am inclined to think that the whole system of unemployment insurance and a great deal of the system of trade unionism will ultimately break down under the pressure of economic fact. I
know I am laying myself open when I say that to the charge that I would like to see it happen. I think we have reached such an artificial position, with the Government butting so much into trade which it does not understand, and the Labour party butting into questions which they do not understand, that the whole thing will sooner or late tumble down with a crash. I would not like to see the workers of this country worse off fifteen years hence than they were twenty years ago, but I think it is right for independent Members of this House who are not large employers or representatives of organised labour to express their views as to the trend of events and as to the road on which we are going.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I do not think anyone could possibly have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) without a very great deal of sympathy. I, at any rate, listened to it with the greatest possible respect, as I always do listen to his speeches. I entirely appreciate his point of view, and I think he put forward an exceedingly strong case in support of it, but, while I have said that I wish also to say that I do very much hope that the Government will lend an ear to those who desire to support the Lords Amendment on this point, and for this reason: I also speak as one who is in no sense a large employer of labour, but I feel that in this Amendment the Lords hare gone to the very heart and root of the economic and industrial situation by which we are confronted at the present moment. The views put forward by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting were theoretical views with which one cannot possibly disagree in theory, but the Lords, on the other hand, have put forward the practical views of the industrial situation. What is the heart of the industrial situation? My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting spoke of influences which are making for a reduction of wages. These influences are really irresistible. They are quite irrespective of any opinion of the Members of the other House, or, as a matter of fact, of the opinion of any of the Members of this House. The influences which at the present moment are primarily making for a reduction of wages, or rather of the cost of labour—for I draw a very clear
distinction between the two—are these: at the present moment industry cannot stand the charges which have been put upon it. That is the point from which we must start in the discussion of this whole problem of unemployment, and I venture to suggest that the House would do well before it rejects this Amendment to consider the motives that are behind it. These motives are in no sense inimical, I believe, to the wellbeing of the wage-earning classes; quite the reverse. I believe that the very worst which at this moment could be done in the interest of those who live by the labour of their hands is to induce them to suppose that the economic situation of to-day is one other than of unstable equilibrium; and if that equilibrium is overturned, as it certainly will be overturned unless we are very careful, they would be the worst sufferers, the first and the worst sufferers. I would beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, whom I hope I may speak of as my friends of the Labour party, to consider this question very, very seriously.

Mr. IRVING: We are never doing anything else. We live with it.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I do not suggest they ever do anything else, but I would beg them to reconsider this very seriously from the point of view of the realities of the economic situation. My belief is that if they will look at it from that point of view, and not from the theoretical point of view, they will be the first to give support to this Amendment.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am rather inclined to think the discussion has rather broadened out, and one must answer some of the statements that have been made. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has forgotten one essential fact in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that is if men fail to agree with their employers and a dispute follows—I am not talking about the individual man and his 35s. or 40s. a week, I am talking about trades and large bodies of people; if they fail to agree, and if it should result in a strike or even in a lock-out, the right hon. Member ought to know that no person is entitled to unemployment benefit during the period of that dispute, so that knocks his argument all to bits.
There is nothing left. There is nothing in it, because if you are going to talk about the individual man I say we must protect the individual man just as much as we have the right to protect large numbers of employés. My hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. G. Balfour) talked to-day as if the whole of the working classes were made up of malingerers and frauds, as if everybody was on the look-out for what he could get for nothing. I say it is the greatest slander that has ever been uttered against the working classes of this country, and I speak with knowledge and experience. I would ask my hon. Friend if it is not a fact that at the present time there is a big industry stopped, which he knows well—the tinplate trade. Raw material has gone down in every way, block tin has gone down, steel bars have gone down, an arrangement has been come to between the employers and the workmen for a sliding scale, and wages have come down. Everything has come down except the price of coal, and, of course, railway charges remain the same. That trade employs thousands of young people of the age he describes, and yet to-day there is not an employer employing one of them. The works are still idle. I do not want to protect the malingerers, I do not want to protect the man who will not work—and, of course, there are bound to be of necessity, in a great community, a few frauds and humbugs among the working classes, as there are among the other classes; but I say that the machinery of the Employment Exchanges and where the unemployed benefit is paid out with the supplementary funds of the trade unions is as good a safeguard as you can have, and the malingerers are weeded out. My last word is this: the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London speaks with two voices in this House. A few days ago we heard him talking in defence of railway agreements, that the railway agreements must be maintained, and that the uttermost farthing must be got for dividends and interest due to the shareholders. He had no voice for the poor taxpayer who was being fleeced then. When it comes to the workman who is protected by this Bill, then, of course, the poor taxpayer is the right hon. Gentleman's first consideration. Let us be fair all round.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. Member that never in my life have I advocated the breaking of a contract. Any contract made by the workman is just as sacred as a contract made by anybody else.

Sir C. OMAN: An inch of fact is worth an ell of theory and a mile of rhetoric. I just want to keep the House for two minutes to give an example of what this fetish of nobody accepting wages smaller than the highest he has had in the War means in a certain industry with which I am acquainted. For many years the 25 colleges of Oxford bound all their foreign books, thousands of them. The result was a great many binders were employed. During the War the price of binding, but still more, the wages of the binders, went up to a high pitch. The point was reached when the colleges, which are no better off than they were before the War—indeed, they are worse off, because their members are still paid on the scale reached in 1880, with no bonus or addition since that time—found themselves absolutely unable to continue the practice of binding their foreign books. Appeals have been made to the bookbinding fraternity, but they say wages cannot come down. The result is that at the present moment books are going unbound on to the shelves which at any time during the last 50 years would have been bound. The result is that bookbinders are beginning to be discharged. We are very sorry for it, but it is not our fault. Is there any possible way out of this little deadlock except a reduction of wages? I see no other way. I feel I must vote with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the general theory that this fetish of maintaining the highest wage paid during the War cannot be defended.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Noble Lord opposite suggested that hon. Members who were not directly connected with labour might well express an opinion on this subject as representing the general public, and I propose to accept his invitation. It has been my privilege, for some months, to sit on a Labour Exchange Committee of Inquiry appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour, and one of the facts which emerged from that inquiry was that a certain amount of suspicion existed on the side both of
employer and of employed with regard to the use made of these Exchanges. It was felt by that Committee that if the Exchanges are to exist it is desirable they should be made use of to the largest possible extent, and if we want them to secure the confidence of both employers and employed, it is absolutely essential that in their administration they should not take sides with regard to labour disputes. For that reason alone it is important we should not agree to the Lords Amendment. The suggestion is that it would vary the practice of the Insurance Acts since 1911, and interfere with the trade conditions as arranged between trade unions and employers. I submit that is a very sound argument why we should not seek to vary a practice which has worked excellently since 1911.
Reference has been made to the fact that this varies the principle of the Act of 1920. But it goes back further than that. It goes back to the Act of 1911. It is suggested that a man may not care to take work simply because it is unsuitable, and that apparently the insured person is the arbiter on that question. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm me when I say that the question whether it is suitable or not does not rest with the insured person, but with the Labour Exchange in the first instance, and if the Exchange has any doubt as to whether the work is suitable there are employment committees in each district charged with the decision of the matter. The employer has a right of redress if he likes to use it in the same way as the insured person, by appealing, and if necessary that appeal can be carried to the Court of Referees. I submit it is not a question of standing in the way of reduced wages, which, if they are to come, will come in the course of natural negotiations between employers and employed.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: But how long will it take to find out whether the work is suitable or unsuitable?

Mr. THOMSON: This has been going on regularly every week since 1911, and the Labour Exchanges are charged with the responsibility of seeing that the duty is carried out conscientiously in the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. BALFOUR: My question is, how long will it take to find out whether or not the work is suitable?

Mr. THOMSON: If there is suitable work available no payment is made to an employé, and if he feels aggrieved he can appeal to the local committee and to the Court of Referees. No doubt this will take time, but if the decision of the Labour Exchange has in the first instance been against the insured person the benefit is suspended and he is not receiving any payment. There is another and further security, and that is in the trade unions themselves. In a large proportion of the insured trades the insurance is effected by the trade union as well as through the State scheme, and experience we have shows us that the administration of the trade unions is, if anything, more severe in watching that payment is not made without cause than it is on the part of the Labour Exchanges. Therefore we have a double security. I submit it would be inadvisable, after ten years' experience, to, at this critical time in our industrial history, seek to vary a practice which has worked soundly and well. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that, in the first instance, the remarks of the Minister of Labour appealed to him as suggesting that there was a contract with the insured parties with regard to the benefits to be administered, and that it would not be fair, therefore, to vary the conditions. But later the right hon. Baronet went on to say that as already the terms under which the unemployment benefit was granted had been varied there was no reason why there should not be a further change. That would be a perfectly sound argument if we were dealing with a new Bill and new conditions. But the administration of benefits to be paid as from to-morrow, if this Bill passes into law, will be in respect of contributions which have been made under the old conditions, and therefore we must keep faith with those who have insured on conditions laid down in the 1911 and 1920 Acts. We should be breaking faith with the insured people if we now sought to impose a further condition which was not laid down when the original Act was passed. Under these circumstances I hope we shall support the Minister in his resistance to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: This proposed change absolutely destroys the
principle of unemployment insurance by importing into the Insurance Act the principles of Poor Law relief. The object of the Unemployment Insurance Act was to obviate the necessity for Poor Law relief in order that people without work should not be obliged to go to the workhouse, but should be able by their own contributions together with the contributions of the employers and of the State, to maintain themselves. A man has a right to live, to be fed, clothed and housed. That is an elementary right which we acknowledge in this country, and it is far better he should get the wherewithal to do it from the insurance fund than from the workhouse. We settled that principle in 1911, and I must say that the arguments of my hon. Friends opposite who have spoken on this subject have seemed to ignore that fact.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman waived his hand in my direction. I suppose therefore he includes me. May I say that is the very reason I supported the Government.

Mr. DENNISS: I support the Government because I believe that to introduce the principle of Poor Law relief into unemployment insurance is wrong.

Earl WINTERTON: At any rate I did not ignore that principle, on the contrary, I agree with it, and that is why I am supporting the Government.

Mr. DENNISS: Of course I will not include the Noble Lord in the general waive of my hand, but hon. Members must remember that these increased benefits that are given to the unemployed are really to a large extent paid out of a pool to which they have contributed in the past, and therefore on that ground I support the action of the Government in asking that the Lords Amendment be rejected, more particularly for the reasons given by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Clynes), with which I entirely agree.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to say one word as to the responsibility of the Government in the matter. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that if the Amendment were accepted it would introduce new conditions. Unfortunately there are new conditions to-day which we have to face. We are in the new condition of being a poor country instead of a rich one and having an unprecedented situation throughout the land. The
Government must take responsibility in this matter, and we who are here to support them can only support them when they make a proposal of this kind. I should, however, like to have some assurance from the Minister of Labour that he realises that behind this there lies a great question, and that is, how we as a nation can find the money with which to go on paying for what is after all uneconomic employment. That is the real point. Here is a man who has been in a certain kind of employment drawing an adequate wage. When he loses that employment, through no fault of his own, is he to have unemployment pay because he cannot get employment at his old trade or at the old rates, or is he to be obliged to take something that he does not like, something which will, from a national point of view, be economic employment in which he will be producing something that will pay for the wage he receives? That is the real point. How long can we go on withdrawing labour by unemployment pay and paying money to men who are producing nothing, withdrawing it from paying wages to men who are producing something? That is really at the basis of the whole matter. Where we have, as we had before the War, large resources, we can afford to look into the question as between individual workmen and the industry, and to talk about this bargain, this arrangement or these conditions. We have been discussing the matter to-day as if that were the position now. It is not so. We are face to face with the position that it is doubtful how long we shall be able to carry on our industries if the costs of production remain as high as they are to-day with unemployment continually increasing at the expense of productive labour. Whatever bargains we may have made in the past, whatever we have been able to do in the past, and however much we may desire to see men either doing their proper work or getting unemployment pay, the question that lies behind this Amendment is, how long, under present conditions, can we afford to give a man that right, when he can get some other work which would be productive, and would add a little to the wealth of the country instead of subtracting from it? The question for the Labour party is, are they prepared, in a crisis like this, to surrender that right, which they have got as a bargain, that a man is either to do his own job or get unemployment
pay, when it means the loss of something to the country? la it in the national interest, is it in their own interest in the future, to go on pressing for that right, rather than say that, in the present crisis, it is better for the man to do some other job where he will be adding to the wealth of the country instead of subtracting from it. This is not a question of what is moral, or what is right; it is purely a question of what is possible. From the point of view of morality, we should all wish every man to get the highest possible wage. It is not a question of what is right, but of what is possible. If the money is not in the country, whatever right a man may have to a high wage or to unemployment pay, he cannot get it if it is not there. The Government must look at the matter from that wide point of view, and, if they ask their followers to support them in rejecting this Amendment of the Lords, on the minor ground of existing conditions, it is for them to deal in some other way with the much wider issues upon which I have touched, and to see that they do not go on withdrawing from productive industry—in which money is vitally necessary at the present time—money for paying unemployment benefit to men who could be working at something which, perhaps, they might not like so well, but which would add to the wealth of the country instead of decreasing it.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: On a point of Order. Is it not necessary to move to waive the question of privilege?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): No. The question was, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in said Amendment." Had the Motion been to agree with the Amendment, an entry would be made in the Journal that the privilege was waived.

Dr. MACNAMARA: With great respect there has been no Motion, so far as I am concerned, to waive the privilege. I understood Mr. Speaker to say that this was a question of privilege, but that the Debate might continue.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no need for a Motion to waive the privilege
The Question was put from the Chair, as Mr. Speaker informed me, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), after the word "section" ["No person shall be entitled to benefit under this section"], insert
whose wife or husband resident in the same house is in receipt of wages, annuity or other income amounting to more than double unemployment benefit at the full rate, or

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Amendment falls under the same ruling of Mr. Speaker in regard to the matter of privilege.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before the House decides to disagree with this Amendment, I should like to say one or two words in support of it. May I point out to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Bartley Denniss) that we did amend the Act of 1911 by the Act passed in October, 1920, and we again amended it last December. We are now amending it yet again. If it is possible to amend it three times in certain directions, it certainly is possible to amend it in other directions. I do not think my hon. Friend can say that it can be amended in one direction and in one direction only. I regret very much, for the reasons, more or less, which I gave before, that the Government do not accept this Amendment. Here is a person whose wife or husband, resident in the same house, is in receipt of an income of 40s. a week. Why on earth should they receive a further donation? Surely the whole object of this Bill was to save people from starvation; it was not intended to give them a kind of pension and make life easy for them. If they are in receipt of an income, from no matter what source, amounting to 40s. a week, how can it be contended when it is in the interest of the country as a whole, or of the workers, that they should be able to claim an additional sum of 20s.? That 20s. is made up not only from their own contributions, but from two other sources, namely, the contributions from the employer and the contributions from the State. My experience, as far as regards the workpeople in the two or three indus-
tries with which I am more or less connected, is that there is no desire on the part of the workmen to contribute to the unemployment fund. On the contrary, I have found a great desire to have nothing whatever to do with it, and they are being compelled to do something which they themselves would much rather not do. I think that the very powerful speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) shows that it is not in the interest of the workmen, because it will prevent the revival of business and trade, and the only possible chance for the workman to live comfortably, happily, and prosperously is when trade and industry is good. Trade and industry cannot be good unless that trade or industry is able to produce articles at such a cost as will enable them to find a purchaser at a profit to the workmen and employers concerned in the industry. I am not for a moment doubting the humanity of those who desire the conditions with which I disagree, and I hope that hon. Members do not doubt my humanity because I happen to take up what is perhaps an unpopular attitude. I do so because I believe that in the interest of humanity itself you have to recognise the position. You cannot rely upon payments of this sort, because, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman) said, they cannot go on. There is no chest into which you can put your hand and pick out sovereigns and throw them about, and therefore we have to recognise the economic fact that people can only live by their production. If what they produce cannot be sold at a profit, there is an end of everything. I agree with the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) that the Government has shown a tendency to adopt the line of least resistance, and concede the demands of the Labour party—demands which are certainly, in the majority of instances, made in all sincerity, but which are put with a wrong conception of what is the real state of affairs. Attempts of this sort have been tried over and over again in past years in other countries, and have always failed, and I felt that, however much I might be misrepresented, however much it may be said that I take one attitude on one day and another attitude on another day—which I venture to deny—it was my duty to make this protest. I love my country just as much as hon. Members opposite, but I believe that, in the interest of my country, it is absolutely
essential that the facts to which I have referred should be recognised.

Mr. CLYNES: Personally I do not join in any reproach which has been directed against the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Banbury) with regard to his attitude during this discussion. He is quite consistent in the line that he is following, and he is following the line which I quite expected him to follow. I think, however, that he is not exhibiting anything like a fair attitude of mind as between one class and another in the support which he is giving to this Amendment. I do not think that he would support the principle of this Amendment in relation to any other than a working class family. Let me give my reason for that conclusion. The right hon. Baronet is a very strong and consistent defender of the rights of the individual, as he sees those rights. What is the situation here? Two persons, man and wife, both contribute to the insurance fund. They may do it reluctantly, but they are compelled by law to do it. They have both thereby secured a certain legal right, namely, the right to benefit during a state of unemployment. This Amendment proposes that, should it happen in this working-class household that one of the workers is compulsorily unemployed and entitled to benefit, he or she shall not get that benefit if the other worker happens to be earning wages amounting to 40s. a week. I say that that is depriving one of the two individuals of the amount to which he or she is legally entitled by the contributions which the law compels them to make. Let us see how easy it would be to evade the effect of this Amendment if it were passed. The man is out of work, but the law says that he is not to have his benefit because his wife is in employment. How easy it is for the wife to put herself in a state of unemployment, so that both might receive a total sum of £2 a week. This Amendment would abrogate the personal rights of the insured individual, and even the right hon. Baronet himself ought not to be found supporting it. I object to it most of all on the ground that it embodies the principle of fixing a maximum household income for a working-class family in a manner in which no one would think of fixing a maximum income in the case of any other family. If we are to avoid class legislation and the class view, no
Amendment of this kind ought to be seriously pressed. So long as you compel separate persons separately to insure and separately to pay their contributions, they have a perfect right to the benefits which the law provides when they are in a condition to claim those benefits, and no one's claim should be denied on the ground that some other person in the house happens to remain at work and is earning a sum up to 40s. a week. Seriously, the Lords have not taken into account the rights of the individual and the contributions, which come more from the employers and from the insured person than they come from the State, for the purpose of the unemployment insurance funds, and I look to the House unanimously to reject this Amendment.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: I think the fallacy of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said lies in this, that he starts, like the Labour Minister, from the supposition that the insured person is paying the premiums and is therefore entitled to the benefits quite apart from any conditions of this sort. If the insured person were paying all the benefits that argument would be perfectly valid, but actually other people are paying a very considerable proportion of these premiums and therefore the benefit under the Insurance Act is exactly analogous to Poor Law relief. It is compelling the majority of the people of this country to supply benefits to those who have fallen into misfortune by Act of Parliament, which is exactly analogous to Poor Law relief. In questions of Poor Law relief consideration is taken of the family income invariably, and therefore, what the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has submitted is a perfectly fair and just argument and probably much more correct than what the Labour Minister or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) said. In cases like this of forcible charity, that is of Poor Law relief and nothing else, it is quite logical and quite justifiable to take into consideration the family income, and, therefore, to my mind, the arguments, both of the Labour Minister himself and the right hon. Gentleman, fall to the ground entirely.

Major BARNES: I never expected to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) advocating a policy which would lead to immorality or the breaking
up of family life and to idleness and waste. Let us see if that is not exactly what the Amendment would lead to. A person who has a wife or husband in receipt of wages or an annuity is the person who would be imperilled by the Amendment. If they were not married, if they were living together without the sanction of the law and the Church, this Amendment would not touch them. Again, if they were married they could evade this law by residing apart, because the Amendment only affects those people whose wives or husbands are resident in the same house.

Sir F. BANBURY: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman support me when I wished to differentiate in the incidence of the Income Tax, which compels a man and wife to join their incomes together?

Major BARNES: When I heard of this Amendment I noted on my Paper that it was a curious Amendment to come from people who were supporters of differentiation in the matter of the Income Tax. I do not know whether the argument I am submitting would or should lead me to become a supporter of the right hon. Baronet. I will consider it from that point of view, and if it appears to do so I will endeavour to face even that possibility. Then, certainly, it would lead to idleness, and it is rather curious to hear the right hon. Baronet speaking in the same breath about increased production and then proposing by this Amendment to penalise families in which both husband and wife go out to work. Normally, I do not believe in the wife going out to work. I think she can find a great deal more work inside the house than she is likely to find outside, but there are a number of cases where married people carry on separate occupations, and those are just the kind of people who are engaged in increasing production, which would be imperilled by the Amendment. Certainly, it would lead to waste, because this penalises not only people who are in receipt of wages, but who are in receipt of annuities or other income, and that is certainly a very surprising doctrine to come from the other side, that people who by the exercise of industry and thrift have secured some other income than that in which they are earning wages should by an Amendment of this sort be placed in a disadvantageous position as compared
with people who have not exercised those qualities. I hope the arguments I have addressed to the House may lead the right hon. Baronet to reconsider his position and withdraw his support of the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS: On numerous occasions during the last few days we have heard it argued that the continued payment of unemployment benefit is uneconomic in its effect, and on that point we agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). We have asserted in season and out of season that it would be far better to utilise national expenditure in reproductive work than to apply it to the payment of what have been termed "doles." But when we present that point of view we run up against the hostility of the right hon. Baronet from another point of view. If we urge that the State should put into operation work of a reproductive character, and organise labour on that work, we are at once met with the opposition of the right hon. Baronet and his friends that we are encroaching upon the preserves of private enterprise in a direction which we ought not to. While we are very definite upon this attitude, and say reproductive work should be instituted, we claim that so long as that is not done the employed workman has a claim upon the community, and the contribution that he makes is the basis of the claim that he has upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and to limit his income to 40s. a week, and if it exceeds that amount to put a person out of benefit on that account, is an altogether unfair position to take up, because in these days 40s. a week income in an ordinary working-class family is not very far removed from the poverty line, and to put an arbitrary sum of that character will not enable the working-class population to maintain themselves in that standard of efficiency that they are entitled to. I can quite understand the right hon. hon. Baronet considering that 40s. is quite sufficient in these days. It is notorious that the industrial connection with which he is associated up to a year or two ago was one of the lowest paid industries in the country. There were scores of thousands of people working on the railways at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17s.
a week, and it has often been said that over 100,000 men upon the railways were working for £1 a week.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is introducing matter which is irrelevant to the question before the House. On these Lords Amendments we keep with special care to the actual matter of the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS: I am suggesting that 40s. a week, which is proposed as the point at which claims can be made for unemployed benefit, is an altogether inadequate and arbitrary figure and I am comparing it with the fact that the right hon. Baronet may take the opposite view because his experience comes close up with the facts I have indicated. Also I think the argument used by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) is one that ought not to enter into a discussion of this character. I believe the term "doles" has been used in days gone by as a sort of stigma.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I did not say doles, I said Poor Law relief.

Mr. MYERS: I will accept the correction. The expression "doles" has been used to indicate the taking of this benefit and the term "dole," or Poor Law relief, is used for the express purpose of conveying a stigma upon the individual who holds his hand out for this benefit. But the ordinary worker contributes the larger proportion of this sum and it is a mutual arrangement between him and the employer. It hardly comes within the category of what is expressed by the hon. Member. It has, I know, upset the feeling of some hon. Members that we are ready to accept the declaration that is put upon us by hon. Members, and the fact that we are willing to give expression ourselves to the same term has rather unsettled those who wanted to apply that scheme to the industrial workers. The whole discussion surrounding this matter is an indication of the temper of the House upon these matters which are moving in the direction of bringing wages down. What does it matter to the workers what the wages are if they bring an adequate standard of life? Therefore while the tendency is for wages to come down, those organisations which are working in the direction of artificially maintaining prices—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No such general economic considerations are relevant on this occasion. I must again ask the hon. Member to direct himself to the Amendment.

Mr. MYERS: While Mr. Speaker was in the Chair we had the philosophy of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) and the economics of the hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Oman), and I can quite see that if the House accepts a combination of those two things, hon. Members opposite may well go astray, and we will take no responsibility for their going astray if they do, but blame the economics of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) and the philosophy of the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton). I shall oppose the Amendment on the ground that it attempts to express a tendency which finds favour in this House and in another place that the one line of attack which is to be made in this exceptional crisis of our country's history is always upon the worker and his standard of subsistence.

6.0 P.M.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the phrase used by the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) that this payment which had to be made was in the nature of Poor Law relief. The whole object of the Act has been to remove the payment from any stigma of the Poor Law. It is a contributory insurance. It is a payment which is enforced by law. It is true that the contributions come from three sources, but it is obligatory upon all three. Therefore it is entirely removed from the nature of Poor Law relief. I cannot imagine the common sense of the argument that such a term can reasonably be used at all. The argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) seemed to me to be absolutely unanswerable. Here you have a case which is really a case of contract. Here is a man who has made his payment, with the help of the employer and the State, and has contracted to receive, when he is out of employment, that which the Act entitled him to have, and I am surprised when I find the right hon. Baronet, the invariable and effective champion of the rights of contract, can be found to suggest that in a case of this kind a man is not entitled to that which he has contracted to have by the payment which he has made. I
can imagine nothing more disastrous than for this Amendment to be adopted. Think what will happen. Suppose a husband and wife are living together in the same house. The husband is out of employment. He has paid his contribution and is entitled to payment under the Act. The wife happens to be earning 40s. a week, or, at any rate, she has an income of that amount, and the man, who has been paying perhaps for years, is to lose that which he has earned and which the Act of Parliament says he is entitled to have. It would be unjust and disastrous to adopt any such course, and if the opposition to this Amendment is pressed to a Division it will have my entire support.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "the foregoing provision" ["Committee under the foregoing provision"] and insert "this Section";

Leave out the word "the" ["the condition"] and insert "a";

Leave out the word "Sub-section" ["this Sub-section shall"] and insert "Section."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—Period of Unemployment Benefit.

(1) Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which provides that no person shall receive unemployment benefit for a period of more than fifteen weeks or such other period as may be prescribed) shall have effect as though twenty-six weeks were therein substituted for fifteen weeks.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) after the word "shall" ["no person shall"] insert "within any insurance year."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After the word "shall" ["prescribed) shall"] insert "not operate during the special periods, and shall thereafter."

Dr. MACNMARA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is an Amendment which may possibly vary the benefits. Therefore I ought to draw attention to it as a privilege Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained the effect of the Amendment earlier.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Construction, saving, short title, commencement, and duration.)

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

The expression "special periods" means the following two periods, that is to say, the period from the day on which this Act comes into operation to the thirty-first day of October nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the period from the first day of November nineteen hundred and twenty-one to the second day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the days above mentioned being in all cases inclusive:

The expression "local employment committee "means any local committee to which questions may be referred under Sub-section (5) of Section thirteen of the principal Act.

(3) Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, nothing therein contained shall operate so as to deprive any person of, or to prevent any person from receiving, any unemployment benefit which he would have been entitled to receive if this Act had not passed.

(5) This Act shall come into operation on the Thursday next after the passing thereof, and the provisions of this Act providing for increases in the rates of unemployment benefit and in the rates of contribution shall cease to have effect on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "thirty-first day of October," and insert "second day of November";

Leave out the word "first" ["first day of"] and insert "third";

At the end of Sub-section (1) insert a new Sub-section—
(2) In the application of this Act to Ireland references to a court of referees shall be substituted for references to a local employment committee.

At end of Sub-section (3) insert
or so as to render it necessary for the Minister at any time before the third day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, to require any association to make for the purposes of proviso (a) to Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen of the principal Act any greater or further provision for un-
employment benefit than would have been required to be made for those purposes if this Act had not passed.

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "Thursday next after the passing thereof," and insert, "third day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: This Amendment varies the conditions in the other direction. I draw attention to it as a privilege Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. We agree.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "thirtieth day of June," and insert "sixth day of July."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment to leave out the word "sixth" and to insert instead thereof the word "first."

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "twenty-four" ["nineteen hundred and twenty-four"] and insert "twenty-three."

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. T. THOMSON: It is unfortunate that this Act should be curtailed in its benefits to the extent of even one year. The right hon. Gentleman has said that before the period elapses no doubt the whole question will be reconsidered, but, surely, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and to give away something which is a certainty for something which may not materialise is a mistake. I regret that the Government should have sought to agree with the Lords on this point. I do not know whether it is a sop to them that, having rejected three material Amendments, they are going to accept one which is of some considerable substance. It is very
unfortunate and quite unnecessary, because the Act provides that if the actuarial figures require adjusting one way or the other, the Minister has power either to reduce the benefit or to increase the contributions. He has the power to meet any contingencies that may arise; therefore, it is most unfortunate that he should agree to the curtailing of the effect of this Act, even by one year. One knows from experience that Acts have been repealed before the Government have had time to bring in measures to take their place. I refer particularly to the Bill, which was passed last year, taking out of the hands of the local insurance committee the power of dealing with tuberculosis. We have not yet before us, and it is questionable whether we shall find any time for it, a measure for replacing that Act which has been repealed. Having before us that fact of the repeal of an Act which has a vital effect on the health of the country, it is unfortunate that now we should seek to limit the power of the present Act unnecessarily.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member made the remark that by way of a sop to those in another place we have done something to limit the benefit provided by this Act. It is nothing of the kind. The emergency period stands. Under the Bill as it stood we were compelled to review matters at the end of 1924; but by this Amendment we shall be compelled to have

SECOND SCHEDULE.


MINOR AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.


Enactment to be Amended.
Nature of Amendment.


First Schedule
…
…
…
In paragraph (d) of Part II for the words from "certifies that" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "the employment is, in his opinion, having regard to the normal practice of the employer, permanent in character, that the employed person has completed three years' service in the employment, and that the other circumstances of the employment make it unnecessary that he should be insured under this Act," and the following words shall be added at the end of the paragraph:—

Lords Amendment:

At the beginning of the Schedule insert a new paragraph:

"Section 7
…
…
…
For the words 'suitable employment' in paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (1) there shall be substituted the words 'employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit'."

the review at the end of 1923. In all probability when we get that far we shall, having looked round and considered the benefits and the contributions which are now based on more or less speculation, find ourselves compelled to amend the scheme. We are giving my hon. Friend by this Amendment the opportunity of indulging in something better in the way of an Insurance Act than the present one.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not share the fears of my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) regarding the effect of the Amendment, and as a matter of choice I should prefer that the shorter date be in the Bill. It will give us an earlier opportunity of reviewing the circumstances and conditions which at the moment we cannot estimate. If the period was left as the end of 1924 it would mean that a Government might be unwilling to return to this topic until the Act had expired, and that would deprive us of an opportunity of reviewing this problem in the light of circumstances which may develop in the course of the next 12 or 18 months. From the standpoint of the usefulness of the Bill this Amendment is quite harmless, but the balance of advantage so far as the workers are concerned lies in the acceptance of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. HOPKINSON: After what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I hope the Government will reconsider its decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HOPKINSON: I fear it is quite useless, although it is one's duty, to endeavour to put considerations before the House which may be of value. This particular Amendment of the Lords will have the effect of diminishing the period during which unemployment is rife. The whole point of the Amendment is that if a man has worked at a certain trade or branch of a trade, and he finds himself unable to get employment in that particular branch of his trade he shall be forced to accept a position in some other analogous or suitable branch of trade before he is allowed to come on the unemployed benefit. I am quite aware that the Amendment completely cuts across the whole policy of trade unions of the present day. That is the policy of limiting the form of work which any given man may take up. That policy is the basis of the dispute on demarcation which are giving rise to a very great amount of unemployment. I speak from some experience, for only last week I was building a cottage for myself, and I employed a bricklayer to do certain work on the outside of the house which the Plasterers' Union said was their work, and the plasterers came out on strike. This Amendment of the Lords will prevent a vast amount of unemployment which is due to demarcation disputes, and the Government's policy in objecting to the Amendment is simply a policy of helping these demarcation disputes to continue. It is the policy of subsidising by the taxpayers' money these absurd demarcation disputes. It is impossible to get consideration of these matters in the way that they deserve. When we have the Minister of Labour informing us quite bluntly that he adopts all these fallacies for which trade unions and the Labour party are notorious, it is quite hopeless for anyone who has studied the subject to some extent and who has had some practical experience to do anything in this House to relieve the present state of unemployment.

Colonel NEWMAN: I hope that the Government will agree to the Lords Amendment. The Minister of Labour has drawn our attention to the case of a
watchmaker who was out of employment in his trade and was offered employment as hotel porter.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I said as a shipyard labourer.

Colonel NEWMAN: Who was offered employment as a shipyard labourer. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unreasonable to suggest that that was suitable employment for him. An hon. Member has pointed out that this is a most critical time in our industrial history. The Great War was a most critical time in our national history. In the Great War watchmakers and other people took jobs in the trenches which they did not think was suitable employment, for which they were physically fit. I do not believe that the average workman in the country to-day would approve of having this Act turned into a great system of doles for unemployed, and if he was told, "Here is a watchmaker who can have a job as a shipyard labourer; he is a perfectly fit and strong man," the ordinary British workman would say, "He—well ought to go."
This Amendment brings out the vexed question of the refusal to entertain an offer of domestic service. The principal Act, Section 7, Sub-section 1, paragraph iii, says that a woman can get unemployment benefit if she is capable of and available for work, but unable to obtain suitable employment. Imagine a girl employed in a factory, say at 30s. a week, living at home, and out of her salary giving 15s. a week to the home benefit. She falls out of work and gets 15s. a week unemployment benefit. That is roughly what she contributes to the home budget. She goes to the employment exchange and is offered a situation as domestic servant at £30 a year, all found, and refuses that offer. To my mind she would be right under the principal Act and under the present Bill, as apparently she has no particular aptitude for or knowledge of domestic service. She has been in a factory and does not like to become a maid of all work, a drudge in a small household. If that girl can earn 2s. 6d. a day for five days in the week, in some way or other, she is, with her 16s. a week, as well off as when she was earning her 30s. in the factory, and I do not suppose that it is
very difficult to earn 2s. 6d. a day if a girl looks about her. This is a great temptation for a girl not to take domestic service. She bases her claim on the insurance officer, who says, "In my opinion domestic service is not a suitable employment for you. Therefore until I can place you in some sort of factory work I consider you have the right to draw your unemployment benefit at the expense of the taxpayers of the country."
I suggest that that is unfair. I can see through the spectacles of the girl herself. She does not want to go into domestic service, but a great many householders want domestic servants, and if you accept the Lords Amendment the effect would be that she would have to go. How is it to be decided? I would suggest that the local Unemployment Committee ought to consist of three women, one of the working class, one who runs a household, and the third an impartial lady. Before all three cases of this sort shall come. If they decide that this girl is to take service, and that the person wishing to employ her would be likely to make a kind mistress, then these women ought to have authority to turn this girl into domestic service. There is not a single Member on these benches who has not had letters from constituents as to the scandal of women wanting domestic servants who cannot get them. All these unemployed women are drawing unemployment pay, and the householders, already overburdened, have been made to pay their share. I would get over the difficulty by adopting the Lords Amendment and then by having such a committee as I suggest.

Mr. E. WOOD: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend did not devote more attention to this Amendment than he appeared to do. While I do not associate myself with every phrase which was used by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, I think that there is more substance in what he said than some hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to think. I press this point on the ground of principle. The hon. Gentleman quoted the case of domestic servants. He had in mind, no doubt, that there has been a shortage of domestic servants, a demand for them, and at the same time a large measure of unemployment among the classes who might normally find a certain number of
recruits for that service. The present position is that, although those facts are unchallenged, you are yet to be considered liable to pay unemployment benefit to girls or women because you do not happen to be able to fit them in to their particular jobs while there is yet a large number of vacancies for them. They must have whatever job they fancy. The logical result of that principle would be that you would be bound to pay unemployment benefit to everybody who cannot get exactly the work he wants. If that be so, you are sanctioning a serious principle. I should have thought that the object which we ought to have before us in this matter should be, as far as we can, to hold the scale evenly between the workpeople concerned and the taxpayer who has to find the money. I am not sure that we are doing this. People cannot live indefinitely by taking in each other's washing. It is uneconomic and brings its own downfall. I am not such an expert as to say that the suggestion of the House of Lords is the right one. All I am observing is that, if the words in the Bill lead logically to the principle which I have enunciated, they lead us very much too far. If my right hon. Friend does not feel able to accept the words of the House of Lords, he should endeavour to suggest other words to meet a point that requires to be met.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have dealt with the matter already, but I think that I had better respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend and refer to it again. Section 7 of the main Act says that the person
must be capable of and available for work, but unable to obtain suitable employment.
Then it is amended this way, that the person
is capable of and available for work, but unable to obtain employment on reasonable terms for which he is physically and otherwise fit,
those latter words taking the place of "suitable employment." My objection is as to the interpretation of the words "reasonable terms." That really raises the question which has been already discussed of the wages offered. As I have pointed out, the culmination of confusion of thought is, what is meant by "suitable employment"? The suitability is broadly based upon whether or not the work is the sort of work which the man or woman has been doing and is accustomed to doing and
would be likely to return to when once again he gets into employment, but if there is any question of suitability, if a person refuses work on the ground that it is not suitable, it is the duty of the manager of the Exchange, if the appliciant is in his opinion wrong in refusng the work on the ground of suitability, to refuse payment and to refer the matter to the insurance officer and afterwards it can be referred if necessary to the Court of Referees. That is the broad practice which has been followed and it is in the main sound. If these words were put in, what is going to follow? I said earlier that you can say to a watchmaker, "Come, take this job as a shipyard labourer." I stand by that. In the end the unfortunate watchmaker may have to go to work as a shipyard labourer. If you say, "If you refuse work as a shipyard labourer you are forfeiting your benefit," and the man has to take the shipyard work, what sort of a watch and clock maker will he be afterwards?

Mr. E. WOOD: What sort of a watchmaker is he likely to be if he remains in idleness for a long period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: He cannot help his idleness. He is going to be a better watchmaker to the extent of £1 a week insurance benefit. I have here a summary of Umpires' decisions. It is a series of findings on "Suitability," and I propose to call the attention to them of all those who have to administer this Act. They show the specific conditions under which persons are eligible for benefit and the specific conditions under which they will forfeit benefit if they improperly refuse employment. This is one of the decisions:
As a general rule applicants with special skill and experience who have no prospect of re-engagement in their normal occupation should be offered appropriate alternative work, if available, after the lapse of not more than four weeks.
I think that that is sound common sense—
An applicant without special skill and experience is not entitled to any period of grace in which to look for the class of work he would prefer. He must accept any appropriate vacancy for which he is reasonably well qualified.
Here is a decision bearing on an illustration already given—
A girl who is suitable for resident domestic service is not entitled to remain indefinitely on donation because she is registered for daily work. She must be offered a resident job, and, if the offer is declined, the
claim should be referred to the Court of Referees, who will, of course, take any special circumstances into account.
Those decisions bear very closely on the point we are discussing. I propose, when this Bill becomes law, to issue specific regulations, or instructions, to the local Employment Committees which we are bringing into this Bill under Section 3. They will show the conditions under which people will be eligible for benefit, under which they can refuse work and still be eligible for benefit, and the machinery under which they can appeal.

Sir E. NICHOLL: Who refers a case to the referee? Is it the employer or the girl?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The manager of the Exchange may say, "I am doubtful whether you should refuse." He will refer the case to the Insurance Officer and suspend payment in any case of doubt, or in a case where a person improperly declines work. The Insurance Officer could confirm the suspension and withhold payment of benefit, or he could say, "I think benefit ought to be paid." It would be open to the applicant to make application to the Court of Referees. Finally there will be an appeal to the Umpire.

Mr. FRANCE: I assume that Members in all sections of the House are anxious that under this scheme there is no abuse of the Act, no power given to secure some other and different purpose from that which we have in view. Where does the power rest with regard to the decision of "suitability"? The right hon. Gentleman gave us an example. The manager is to decide the point of suitability, but under certain varying conditions, or according as the Act is amended, the Committee is to be brought in. Does the Committee come in and deal with cases except under appeal or only when an appeal is made? Does the first decision come from the manager?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

Mr. FRANCE: Then there may be different decisions given throughout the country according to the opinions of the various managers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is exactly why these decisions are being issued so that there may be a general uniformity.

Mr. FRANCE: These decisions are to be published to give the opinions of certain qualified Umpires in order to help others in arriving at a decision, but they are in no way bound to accept these decisions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

Mr. FRANCE: We have had the illustration of the watchmaker who is asked to take up heavy manual work in a shipyard, and the principal reason given why that work would not be suitable was that the watchmaker would not be physically fit to undertake it and probably would not be physically fit, in another sense, to return to his own work after having undertaken it. I hold no brief for the Lords Amendment, but there is in fact something to be said for these words "physical suitability." It is on that point that the House wants to be quite sure. We want to be certain that there are not social gradations to be considered in the matter, which would prevent some people from doing work they disliked doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that these rules were the rules adopted under the old system of unemployment benefit or dole, against which I have heard stronger words used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) than by any other Member of the House. We are, therefore, agreed that they may have harmful effects Is it certain that there will be the same interpretation put upon these rules under a system for which there is a contribution made by the insured person, or may not the argument be used by the manager that because the man or woman contributes he or she is in a different position and ought to have more consideration? Would not such a man or woman, perhaps, be allowed to make a choice which it is not in the interests of the country that he or she should make?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it the case that if a decision is given by a manager, and it is regarded as a harsh decision, there is an appeal, but if there is a decision which I might call a lax decision, as to which there is some complaint—a decision that unemployment pay can be drawn although many people would think it ought not to be drawn—is there anybody who has a locus standi to raise the question? Is it an absolute one-man decision, if it is in favour of the applicant, but
not a one-man decision if it is against the applicant?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The manager is instructed by the Ministry of Labour. These Regulations place upon him the necessity to look closely into the conditions under which persons may receive benefit. When this Act is passed the manager will again be instructed by a series of Regulations which I am going to send out. If he says to an applicant, "Well, I am doubtful whether you are entitled to refuse this job, and I will therefore suspend your benefit or donation," then the Insurance Officer comes into play, and he says whether the suspension is right or wrong. If he confirms it the applicant is entitled to have the mater reviewed by appeal to the Court of Referees.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Harsh cases make bad law. The right hon. Gentleman instanced the undoubtedly hard case of the watchmaker who might be called upon to take up work as a shipyard labourer. By dwelling on that illustration the Minister of Labour would make bad law of this Bill. Representing, as I do, a constituency which is partly residential, partly industrial, I can confirm what was said by an hon. Member that there is a great deal of feeling at the present moment amongst the small residential class when they cannot obtain domestic servants. They only want one, or perhaps at the most, two, and they are willing to pay reasonable wages and to give a good home, but for some reason or other domestic service is unpopular, and domestic servants are not to be obtained. I suppose to some extent they feel that they are losing their freedom. They are perfectly entitled to do what they like, but it is hard that people who are prepared to employ these young women and to give them good wages should be compelled to contribute towards unemployment benefit because they will not accept that work. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to agree with the Lords Amendment, or at any rate, to introduce some words in substitution therefor. He has just said that his Department are going to issue all sorts of instructions to every committee, but I would rather see those instructions and regulations embodied in the Act, than have them left in the discretion of a body of Government officials.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: I wish to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman to clear up a matter which was raised by my right hon. Friend at my side (Mr. Pretyman). The Minister has told us that the decisions of these managers of exchanges may be appealed against in the sense that the person who is applying for benefit has the right to appeal if the decision goes against him, but what is the position if a large number of people differ locally from a decision given in favour of an applicant? The Minister has told us that that case comes up to him. Does the Minister himself claim the right to review any decision that may be given, because if not, once a case has been decided by the local official in favour of an applicant, it would seem that nothing further can be done, however many people locally may object to the decision. I think the House should know that.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I think the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) is an exceedingly important one in the interests of the taxpayer. Supposing we have a manager who, by inadvertence or otherwise, constantly decides in favour of the applicant and gives him unemployment insurance pay when the man is not really entitled to it. There is no appeal provided for by the Act in that case. Supposing a private individual hears that a man who was in his employment and who has left of his own accord has got unemployment pay, and he makes representations to the manager that the man ought not to receive the pay, the manager may say, "I know better, and I will pay no attention to your view." In that case has the Minister any real power or not? Suppose the case is brought to the attention of the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is a bonâ fide case for interference on his part, can he go to the manager and put the facts before him, and ask him to reconsider his decision? Supposing the manager refuses, and says, "I am the officer in this case, and according to the Act there is no appeal given against me, except when the person who applies for the unemployment pay desires to appeal, ' what would be the course which the right hon. Gentleman could take then?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Let us take the case where a too favourable decision has been given. If a manager is in doubt
as to whether the claim is a good one, he ought then to suspend the unemployment pay. The Regulations on that point are very clear. Further, we have inspectors, whose duty it is to go round checking these things under the Ministry of Labour, and it is their duty to examine these awards. But if an award has been given, and the manager has not observed the Regulations, but has given an award loosely, if it finally came to me, either by way of complaint or by way of question in this House, my function would be this. I would call the manager's attention to it, and I would say: "This must go to the insurance officer. The insurance officer must examine this, and if his decision is different from that given by you, then the machinery of appeal on behalf of the claimant comes in once more": but I have no authority—I am kept definitely out of it—to overrule the final decision of the Umpire. That is independent of the Minister altogether, but, for the rest, it would be my duty in the case instanced to bring it to the attention of the manager. I would point out to the House that the manager has no power except what he gets from me under this Act on his appointment, and if I said: "This ought to be looked into more closely, and you must take it to the insurance officer," that would be done forthwith, although I must again make it clear that I cannot interfere with the final decision of the Umpire.

Sir F. BANBURY: I want to get this quite clear, because it may be necessary for us to divide in favour of the Lords Amendment on this point. The right hon. Gentleman has read out to us certain instructions which have been given by an Umpire in regard to out-of-work donation.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, a decision.

Sir F. BANBURY: He says those decisions would apply to this particular Act. How is that? It is not in the Act. Is it because he has the power under Regulations to apply those decisions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

Sir F. BANBURY: Then let the House see what may happen. These decisions, which seem to me to be very reasonable, are not in the Act.

Dr. MACNAMARA: How can they be?

Sir F. BANBURY: Then put this Amendment in. Otherwise, supposing the right hon. Gentleman opposite succeeds him, he will apply different decisions.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have read a decision in a case referred by the referees to the Umpire. How can I put such decisions in the Act? There are probably hundreds of them, but I read one case which referred to suitability.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that these very decisions which he read out would go a long way towards meeting this Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I said the administration of the new Unemployment Insurance Act would follow the administration of the out-of-work donation, to which that decision which I have read did apply.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood that there was no necessity for this particular Amendment because of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. If that is so, I point out that if there is a new Labour Minister, the whole thing is changed, or may be changed. The result of not putting in an Amendment of this sort is that anything which may be done in the right direction by the present Minister may be changed if another Minister comes into office. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will divide in favour of the Lords Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I think it desirable to correct the statement of the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down with regard to the Umpire's decision. The machinery of the Act is designed to keep the whole question of these decisions out of the hands of the Minister. Whether rightly or wrongly, the view taken at the time when the earlier Act was passed was that these questions of detail were judicial matters which could best be put in the hands of a person in a judicial position. The Umpire has a great many cases referred to him, and they are all test cases. Decisions are given, and they become in effect a series of decisions on important points. It is true that these decisions may not be binding in law, but
they are of great authority, and they are circulated by the Minister as guidance for the decisions of insurance officers and courts of referees in similar cases. It has been suggested that these semi-judicial decisions might be incorporated in the Act. They are a body of decisions which are growing day by day, and as the Act develops in administration, these decisions will grow. As they are given quite independently of any particular Minister, they are a body of administrative rules growing up alongside the Act which are quite independent of what Minister occupies office. They are, in fact, a real safeguard for the honest administration of the Act, and that being so, I would suggest that to put them into the Act is an impossible thing.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. MILLS: References have been made to the Labour Exchanges, and I would suggest that hon. Members who are interested in their work should at least attend an occasional meeting of an unemployment committee. Then I am certain there are Members of the House who would come down to the realities of the case. In the first place the managers of the Labour Exchanges are the very last persons in the world to be favourable to the men—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!]—because, in the last resort, their promotion depends entirely upon their efficiency as viewed from the central office, and it certainly would not be viewed in any favourable light if their decisions were of the character suggested by hon. Members. With regard to the Lords Amendment under discussion, it is, after all, a breach of contract. You have men who have subscribed towards unemployment insurance, under the impression that there is a certain wording in the Act, and here you deliberately alter it. In a Debate on the question of unemployment I raised the point as to what should be reasonable remuneration for work done, but obviously that comes up against the whole principles of this Act. The men on the unemployment committees, the representatives of employers and employed, do not allow the managers of the Labour Exchanges to have any power in the matter. The manager attends largely as a spectator, and may be called on to give his advice occasionally, but he is never there as an autocrat or even as a benevolent autocrat.
It is said that there is a prevalence of unemployment due to a very decided disinclination on the part of unemployed girls to go into domestic service. In this matter you are probably reaping the fruits of the very short-sighted views of mistresses in the past and also in the present. A case has come to my knowledge, within the last five days, in which a man, with children, received unemployment benefit. He has kept his child at a secondary school at Plumstead in spite of the fact that the parents have not had sufficient to keep body and soul together. The child has passed for the Civil Service examination and now, because of the parent's poverty, she has had to accept a position in domestic service. The scholars in that school have clubbed together and bought the necessary material for her, while various friends have helped to equip her to go to domestic service. The girl says that her employers are very, very nice, but that, somehow or other, having had a secondary school education, and having been given some sort of viewpoint with a development rather above the outlook of a domestic servant, she finds it almost intolerable on this small issue, that she is instructed in very unmistakable terms to refer to small children as "Master" this, and "Miss" that. To hon. Members that seems utterly futile and stupid. You will not see that the times are changing, but you must realise that you can no longer accept the domestic help in the spirit of servitude which prevailed in the past.

Sir H. NIELD: It is strange that I should find myself in agreement with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think we are suffering from the sins of the past generation, from want of consideration, sympathy and of a proper appreciation that, after all, those who help use in our households are our fellow-creatures. Those of us who know how to treat our maids have the privilege of being able to keep them for long periods of years, and that is the very best illustration of the manner in which they are treated. There are, however, other things that militate against them. I know of a case where very great struggles were made by the parents to educate the elder girl as a teacher. This has operated on the other members of the family, because of the standard of comfort as a pupil
teacher which the elder girl was able to experience. This has set, as it were, a tone in the family, and made the rest dissatisfied. Another sister has proved a most excellent domestic servant, yet there has always been an underlying feeling of dissatisfaction with her post because her sister's friends are disposed to look upon her occupation as totally different from the other. If only we can remove that obstacle by reasonable treatment and freedom I am perfectly sure that much of the prejudice will disappear. The test is the residential one. Many of us have watched the principal thoroughfares of our suburban districts and have seen that the root of the whole of this objection is the desire for the evening's freedom. You can see that on the very famous walk called Spaniard's Walk at Hampstead Heath every night until ten o'clock. The girls cannot see that it is a very short-sighted policy, if they can get comfortable homes, to object merely on the ground that they want every evening in the week free. Against that there is the good living in the household, as opposed to spasmodic meals to which many of them are disposed to submit outside in order to have money to spend.
What I really rose to ask was whether the decision of the umpire is to be regarded in the ligt of a code of case law similar to that to which the courts have to submit in reference to the decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal? There may be no finality and it may be very difficult indeed sometimes to distinguish between the facts of the case. The facts may be identical and the area of the case different. It may produce innumerable differences of decision, and in a very short time one would have built up, what laymen always protest against, that intricate system of case law which is able to defeat the intentions of Parliament. There, should be some means of insisting that the case must indeed present an unmistakable differentiation before the decision of a recognised umpire is lightly passed by. I hope, in the administration of this Act, that there will not occur what those of us who had the administration of the Military Service Acts and the Profiteering Acts constantly found, that decisions came from the Departments. I understand that cannot be so in this case.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to carry the question which I asked the right hon. Gentleman a little further upon that definite particular point. When the right hon. Gentleman was answering me, he used the expression that when the matter was at all in doubt then the manager would suspend. Is that perfectly clear? It makes a very considerable difference. If the manager is simply to use his own judgment, and if he gives a lax decision, and there is no appeal against that decision, it would be almost necessary for us to divide on the Lords Amendment. What we want is fair play. The right hon. Gentleman told me, in answer to my question, quite frankly—and it was quite obvious he was right—that it was almost impossible to devise any machinery by which any person could have the right, when an official gives a decision considered to be lax, to call that decision into question. This is bad from all points of view, because we see that the only action that can be taken by people who think that lax decisions are given is general criticism and letters to the Press, which bring the whole system into disrepute. If my right hon. Friend will make it perfectly clear that where there is any doubt the matter will be put in suspense or refused, and if he will insist upon it going before a tribunal and coming to an umpire, who will only grant a claim where in his opinion—it must be his opinion, of course—there is no doubt whatever that the claimant has not been offered work which is in any way suitable, then we shall be able to accept the situation. If not I shall feel it my duty to Divide the House, because we shall have no sufficient safeguard, by leaving the words as they are, and leaving their interpretation to an officer who may be too lax—and there have been such instances—without any appeal to the Minister.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand whether there is a regulation which says to the manager: "If there is any doubt about that case, do not grant benefit, but suspend." If there is no such regulation, I will give an undertaking that there shall be. I wish to deal fairly and squarely, and I will give this undertaking to my hon. Friend.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That satisfies me.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I want to go further. I did not refer to the inspectors until the second time that I tried to ex-
plain this. Since I call the inspector a man who checks this decision, I have been looking at his powers under the Act and they are very extensive indeed. It may very well be that we have not got enough inspectors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Now, see where the poor unfortunate Minister stands; I expected to hear that the moment I said it. What I am asked to do—and I will do it as far as I can—is to see that, as far as possible, the decision shall be fair and square, and not unfair either way. I say, "Well, the man I rely on is the manager. He has to take my instructions, and if he has to that shall be done. The person who checks these things is the inspector. Here, I am asked to get the administration as good as it may be. I say I have not enough inspectors, and if I come and ask for more I shall be told that I am among the squandermania league." I will give an assurance that if it is not the duty of the manager to suspend, when a case comes before him in which there is a doubt as to whether the refusal to take work is legitimate under the Act, then it shall be his duty to suspend and to have it referred to the insurance officers.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The whole difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with is what is suitable employment. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that it might be necessary to employ a great many more inspectors, and if that were necessary to ensure that no injustice was done, of course, we should all agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We must either agree to the additional inspectors or that these words lead to such results that injustice would be done, and I suggest that the Amendment proposed is a reasonable standard by which to judge whether a man should take a job or be considered an unemployed person. Surely it is wide enough. No man would object to be judged by that standard, and it would overcome all the difficulty of determining what is or what is not suitable employment. If the House divide upon it, I shall certainly support the Lords Amendment.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph beginning "First Schedule," after the word "employ-
ment" ["circumstances of the employment"], insert the words "in his opinion."

Agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Mr. CLYNES: I take advantage of this Motion to address questions on two general points to my right hon. Friend opposite. One is with regard to what I understand is the increasing degree of complaint on the part of many of the associations, due to the very serious delay in sending the authority to pay the benefits to which the persons are entitled. I have recently seen evidence of delay in sending this authority extending to six and seven weeks, and it is really very hard that men should have to wait so long for their pay. I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take some steps to have some special inquiry made into these cases, provided, of course, we supply him with some definite instances which may guide him as to the causes of delay, which is a ground of real soreness, naturally, to trade unions and the men themselves. The other point is with reference to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. I understood him to say that he intended to issue through the proper quarter—the various Employment Exchanges—some instruction with regard to women or other persons who might have exhausted their benefit, but who might desire to claim the extended benefit accruing under this amending Bill. I understand he has in mind the case of persons, mostly women, whose condition in life has so altered that they do not intend in the future to seek any ordinary wage-earning occupation, and I believe it is the intention to prevent the payment of the benefits in those cases. What I want to ask is, what precisely are the steps which he intends to take? I should hope he would avoid anything in the nature of offensive or objectionable domestic inquisition, and that some step will be taken to have a proper authority to decide whether those persons have a proper claim or not. I think it would be re-assuring to the particular individuals
involved if there could be an answer to those questions.
I cannot sit down without expressing what, I think, is the general feeling of the House and of all parties, and that is, that we are indebted, and have been since this amending Bill came before us, to the industry displayed by the right hon. Gentleman, and to the lucidity which he has exhibited in the repeated statements he has had to make to this House. We are accustomed to receive from him uniform courtesy—that we expected—but I think the House has been exceptionally helped by the attention which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the arduous duty of getting this Bill through its different stages. Personally, we on this side are disappointed with the size of the Bill, and believe it does not go far enough in dealing with the problem. But we cannot withhold our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the helpful manner in which he has assisted all of us in dealing with the various parts of the Bill.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his comments, and I, too, am much obliged to all parties of the House for the way I have been helped in bringing this Bill to a final conclusion under the urgent circumstances with which we are confronted. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's two questions. The first point is that associations under Section 17 of the main Act find that they cannot get reimbursed with sufficient quickness for money paid out, or cannot get authority from us to pay out money as agents under the main Act. Every case brought before me I have done my best to hasten. All sorts of checks are necessary for the proper expenditure of public money, and in some cases the local branch secretary of the trade union has not supplied sufficient detail, or the precise information which we want. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that it has been before me constantly ever since the fall of the year, and anything I can do, or the officials can do, to expedite the payment of money due, we will do, and any case he brings to my notice I will take up personally forthwith. With regard to the second point, a woman has been insured and she marries. There are certain contributions to her credit. She is no longer going to be in the industrial world; her necessities do not
compel her to continue there. For the first year after that she is entitled to such benefits as her contributions have accrued, if she really wants work, is available for work and unable to obtain it. That is laid down in the main Act. Under this Bill we have very much extended the benefits, and we have very much eased the qualifications for such a woman, who could, on the strength of 20 weeks' employment last year, although she is at home with a husband who maintains her, and she does not wish to go to work, claim two series of 16 weeks in the emergency period. I say it would be hardly fair for such a woman to claim it, if she did not need it, and if she did not satisfy the condition in the new Bill, namely, that she is genuinely seeking whole-time employment. What I said at the outset, and now repeat, is that I shall call the attention of those who administer this Bill to this fact, amongst others, that in any case, whoever it may be, she has, under the main Act, to make it clear that she wants work, that she is available for it, which is a very important qualification, and that she cannot get it; and, further, for the emergency period, that she is genuinely seeking whole-time employment. What I said was that I propose to call the attention of the officers who will administer this to those conditions in order that they may be quite clear on the point. Again I thank my right hon. Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee nominated of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Major Hayward, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Pennefather, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

CLASS II.

NATIONAL DEBT OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Debt Office.

Major BARNES: I should like to have some explanation why the increase asked for is required. I can quite understand that with the great increase in the National Debt additional accommodation and staff must be required, but it does seem to me that before being asked to pass this Vote we might have a statement from some Minister responsible for it as to the nature of the increase and the particular direction in which the money that is being asked for is applied. So far as I am concerned, I should rather welcome some expenditure in this direction, if it resulted in the provision of some statistics which would, I think, be of a particularly illuminating character at the present time. For instance, I should like to know very much how the National Debt is held. I should like to know whether the additional amount for clerical assistance is to be devoted towards giving us some statistics, On this question of the National Debt, I think there is a great deal of interesting information which we ought to have, and which would have a very real bearing on the financial policy of the Government. I should also like to get information with regard to incomes—the number of people with an income of £100, of £1,000, and so on.

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot arise on the Supplementary Vote for £10. It is a matter for the main Estimates and general administration.

Major BARNES: I thought £10 was simply a sort of Token Vote in order to comply with some form of procedure. I see there is an amount of £250 for additional clerical assistance, and I wish to know the direction in which it has
been applied. I think a little money would be well spent in giving us some information as to the way in which the National Debt is held.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £550."
I see that the Comptroller-General is to have his salary increased from £2,000 to £2,500 per annum with arrears amounting to £50. Why should he have his salary increased at the present moment, because you could get any quantity of capable people who would be only too glad to take on the work at £2,000 a year. The sum of £2,000 per annum has been sufficient for this post for a considerable time, and I am certain, with the large number of people who are out of employment, it is absolutely unnecessary to give this official another £500 a year. This is a point which I think needs further investigation, and I shall divide the House against this proposal. I do not know who the Comptroller-General is at the present time, but £2,000 a year is a very large sum. The Labour Members very often say that the only people I wish to cut down are the working men, but that is not so. To pay a salary like this at the present moment is wrong in every possible way. It is a fixed salary, and the recipient is free from all the liabilities and anxieties which attend a man in business, who does not know whether he will have a profit or loss at the end of the year. This official receives £2,000 a year for work which is not very much, and I do not think his hours are very long. I think it is a gross waste to give him another £500 a year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to say a word or two in full support of what the hon. Baronet opposite has said. At the end of last Session the Financial Secretary to the Treasury brought forward a charge before this House of many millions for bonus to Civil servants, and although I considered that the lower paid ranks badly required this bonus, I protested against it being given to the officials in the higher ranks, and I voted against the Government. Here there is no talk of bonus, and it is simply an increase of salary. This £2,000 a year is the salary of an admiral who has spent his whole life in the service, and if this official gets £2,000 he is very well
off. It is a very bad thing when wages are being cut down, I am afraid by the ordinary law of supply and demand, for it to go forth that a Government official, with a salary of £2,000, is going to get an extra £500, with £50, and probably bonus. If the right hon. Baronet opposite divides the Committee upon this proposal I shall certainly support it.

Dr. MURRAY: I rise to support this Amendment. During the War there was an idea that everybody's salary should be doubled, and in many cases that was probably necessary, but surely the Government know that prices are now tumbling down, and are likely to continue falling for some considerable time to come unless, by anti-dumping Bills, you make the cost of living much higher. I wonder whether the Government by such proposals as this are making provision to meet the additional cost of commodities under their prospective protective legislation. Otherwise there is no justification for it. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) tells us that you can get lots of perfectly capable men at the salary which a Comptroller-General is receiving, and why should he be paid £500 a year extra at this moment? If the Government are determined to keep up the price of commodities by their proposed legislation they ought to increase other salaries as well, and I am sure that I could make out a claim for increasing the salaries of Members of Parliament. There is no explanation as to why the broker's remuneration is to be increased.

The CHAIRMAN: We are not on that item now.

Dr. MURRAY: I object to these big increases in the higher paid branches of the Service. I am advised, Mr. Chairman, by the authorities on procedure around me, that provision for the broker is provided for in item A, and therefore I think I was in order.

The CHAIRMAN: I beg pardon.

Dr. MURRAY: What I was saying applies with equal force to the broker because the proportion of increase is greater. No doubt the broker has to deal with much bigger sums of money. Probably he has the same number of hours to work, and I see no reason why these big
officials should be paid this increase. I could suggest many ways in which the money could be applied much better and with greater benefit to the public than by increasing these salaries. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I merely wish to repeat a question to which I did not get, as far as I know, an answer last night. I observe that in the Vote we are now considering there are increases of salary of a very considerable amount to two relatively highly placed officials in the National Debt Office. What I want to know is this, whether these increases of £500 a year to the Controller-General and to the broker are isolated cases, or whether they are parts of a general increase of salaries all round the higher divisions of the Civil Service.

Sir H. NIELD: Or war bonus.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Yes, that is another point. It was also a question last night whether these are intended to be permanent increases of salary or whether they are intended to be in the nature of a bonus. But in either case, I desire at this stage very strongly to protest against them. I think it is mere hypocrisy on the part of Member of this House to say what we have been saying at an early part of the afternoon unless we are prepared to carry out the principle as far as public servants are concerned. I do not know whether it is the case or not that these salaries form part of a general increase, but I can assure the Financial Secretary that if he would be good enough to give an answer to the question which I vainly put last night, and which I put again to-night, he would save a good deal of time as far as subsequent Supplementary Estimates are concerned.

Sir H. NIELD: I would like to join in that appeal. I am not at all sure how far we would be in order in discussing the question of the Civil Service bonus.

The CHAIRMAN: May I make that clear. There is a separate Vote for the Civil Service bonus, I notice, and therefore the discussion on that must arise on that Vote, but it is, of course, quite pertinent to ask for information whether these increases are in substitution of, or in addition to, any scale of that kind.

Sir H. NIELD: I am much obliged, and I shall reserve my general observations on that point. It has been a subject of questions from time to time, to which I have had very unsatisfactory answers. I protest vigorously against the salaries of the higher civil servants being advanced at this time by such large sums as these. It seems to me that these gentlemen really have been protected all through the War from suffering the common burdens. I speak on behalf of a very large community of pensioned civil servants who have returned to this country, particularly from India, who have limited pensions governed by the value of the rupee, who are suffering from all the increases in the cost of living, and who are obliged to keep up a certain standard of comfort as best they can, and I am sure that the stories that I could tell the House of the deprivations that these people undergo would form as harrowing a tale as anything told during the last week in relation to unemployment. They are suffering in silence, and I protest on their behalf against these increases. And not only these, but increases extending to other services throughout the country, the municipal service and even non-municipal bodies, who have been egged on to adopt certain provisions. I say it is wrong that this House should permit at this time, while taxation is so severe, increases of this sort without the strongest possible case being made out in support of them. I have always done my best to support the Government, but I will not support them in these increases which are removing burdens from a certain class of the community and putting them on those least able to bear them.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: Without going further into the points which have been raised already, I do wish to protest against these increases being wrapped up in this Supplementary Vote of £10. It is really a Supplementary Vote for £2,200. I fail to see the reason or desirability of including this Appropriation-in-Aid for a matter hardly ancillary to the Vote on the Paper. I contend that this £2,190 which is used to reduce the Estimate ought really to be an excess expenditure which should go to other purposes at the end of the financial year. It seems to me that if these Supplementary Estimates are going to be cloaked by any windfalls which the Department can rake in for the purpose of hiding any further
expenditure, it is a very undesirable thing, especially in these days when there is a really genuine bonâ fide desire to economise and to get Government Departments to economise as far as they possibly can. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary replies, I hope he will deal with the reasonableness of including this, item, (e) Appropriation-in-Aid, as a set-off against an increase of salary such as is proposed here. It is coming from an entirely different source, and I contend if there is a surplus it should go where other surpluses ought to go, and where they are very much needed at the end of the financial year.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I shall do my best to deal with the points which have been raised. The first question on which most Members expressed their view is the amount of salary given to the Controller-General. I may say at once that this is a personal salary confined to the present holder of the office, and is not an increase which will be given in the case of his successor.

Mr. MARRIOTT: It is permanent as regards the present holder?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, as regards the present holder, and the reason he has been given £2,500 is this: The present holder is Sir Thomas Heath, a very distinguished Civil servant, who was a Joint Permanent Secretary to the Treasury throughout the period of the War. At this juncture we considered it of great importance to have a man of his eminence in the Civil Service at the head of this office when it is being re-organised, and during a few years when undoubtedly the responsibilities of that office are a great deal heavier than they have been in years past. In sending him from the Treasury to this very distinguished post we undertook that he should not have less remuneration than he would have had had he remained at the Treasury. In the natural course of events, Sir Thomas Heath's tenure cannot be a long one, because of his age, and I do not think that any Member of this Committee acquainted with him and with the work that he has done would grudge him as a personal salary the salary which we have put down in this Estimate.
With regard to the broker's remuneration, I hope that in saying this I shall carry my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) with me. The remuneration paid to the Government broker is a ridiculous figure for the work done. The reward that the Government broker gets is in status. It is a great thing to be a Government broker. He has a highly honourable position in the City. Any firm would be glad to have it; but as far as pecuniary remuneration goes for the work done, the sum is perfectly ridiculous. I think it would be good for the Committee to know what the broker has to do to-day compared with a few years ago. I take the year 1908–9. I got the figures taken out for that year. The accounts for which investments had to be made were then 26; now the number is 50. The cash invested in 1908–9 amounted to about £30,000,000. In 1918–19 it was £168,000,000, and whereas in 1908–9 the isolated transactions were about 3,000, in 1918–19 they amounted to no fewer than 15,000. So the exceedingly moderate increase that appears in this Estimate bears no relation at all to the increase of business, let alone any relation to what would be the remuneration for the amount of business done were it not for the fact that they really take their reward from the satisfaction which they derive from being able to act as Government brokers in the City of London.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Stourbridge Division (Mr. J. W. Wilson) there is no attempt to camouflage these accounts. As part of the National Debt Office Vote, the expenses of the Pensions Commutation Board have always been included. Against these expenses always come the fees that are paid to the Pensions Commutation Board by those whose pensions are commuted. It does so happen that in this year the sum is larger than it is on the average, because there has been a great demand for commuting pensions in the last year or two, and it may possibly last for a year or two longer. That accounts both for the additional fees paid to the medical officers and for the increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down might I ask him whether he will deal with the point I
raised, namely, whether these increases are part of a general increase?

Mr. BALDWIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. They certainly are not on this Vote. The increase for the Controller-General is a purely personal increase, and arises out of circumstances I have tried to describe. The increase to the broker must be of course permanent until such time as there comes a reduction of business which would warrant a reduction of salary.

Mr. MARRIOTT: What I wanted to ascertain was this. Whether this increase, although a personal one to the Controller, is part of a general increase in the salaries of Civil servants all round England, or whether it is peculiar to the Vote which we are discussing to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: I did my best to make myself plain. What my hon. Friend wants to know now is what is being done in the higher Civil Service salaries? That question can be raised when we come to the question of bonus. It does not arise on this Estimate, nor is the instance of the rise here attributable to any general rise such as he suggests.

8.0 P.M.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite grasped the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. J. W. Wilson). It was not suggested that there was any intention to deceive the Committee in the way in which the Estimates were drawn. I should not associate myself with any such suggestion, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would not make it. But, whereas this appears to be only a Vote for £10, it is really a Vote for £2,200. That is the real point. I daresay it is in accordance with the ordinary practice, but it is quite an important item, for it is really an expenditure of £2,200 If the £2,200 had not been incurred it is evident that the appropriation in aid would have gone to a reduction of debt or some other purpose, and it would have been available for the relief of the taxpayer which it is not now. I want to say a word on what seems to be a general principle raised by my right hon. Friend. He said we paid Sir Thomas Heath on account of his great distinction, which I would be the last person to
question, an exceptional salary of £2,500. He did not tell us whether that was the same salary as he was getting at the Treasury or an increased salary. I should think it is an increased salary.

Mr. BALDWIN: I said the salary he would have been getting if he were at the Treasury now.

Lord R. CECIL: Not what he was getting.

Mr. BALDWIN: Because he left the Treasury during re-organisation, so that he would not lose by the change.

Lord R. CECIL: In point of fact it was an increase of salary on what he was getting at the Treasury. He said it was owing to the great desirability of getting Sir Thomas's services, and also to facilitate the re-organisation of the Treasury which was going on. He also told us in the same way about the broker, that it was a reasonable payment of £500 extra considering the immense addition of work. If we were in a pre-War period the Committee would have listened to this explanation with a great deal of sympathy; I should have for one. I think quite definitely that the Civil Service has been rather underpaid in this country, and if we were in a position to-day to do so, no one would be more in favour of raising the salaries of the civil servants than I should be. But we are not in the position of pre-War days. That is the essential thing for the Government to realise. We have not now got to be told that this is a desirable expenditure, but that it is an expenditure which could not have been avoided without very serious evils to the public service. It is a different atmosphere we are living in altogether. We have got to go much further than any casual criticism of Estimates, and you must lay down the principle of a definite sum which is not to be exceeded. That is the only way in which you will get back or rather reach a position which is comparable, which is suitable to the real facts of the existing situation. I do not doubt that it is in itself a desirable thing to give Sir Thomas Heath £2,500 a year. I do not doubt that he is a most desirable civil servant; I have always heard so. I do not doubt that the broker is not overpaid, but the question is, could we have avoided this expenditure without serious evils to the public service? I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend
made out a sufficient case for these expenditures. That is a point which we have to deal with in this Committee. For that reason I hope we shall have some definite assurance from the Government as to their attitude in this matter.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I say in response to what my Noble Friend has said that with regard to the brokerage I must say my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is right. I do not think the Committee understands what really occurs. The brokers receive no commission at all. I did not quite gather the figures which my right hon. Friend mentioned, but I should say that if he had received a half brokerage, not full brokerage, the brokerage would amount to something like £20,000 a year, if not more, and that is to be remembered when you are considering the position as to whether or not he is to be paid £1,500 or £2,000. It must be remembered that the broker has to pay expenses out of this sum, and there are very considerable clerical expenses arising.

Lord R. CECIL: No, I think that is paid by the Treasury.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, I think not.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In Sub-head (A)."

Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Baronet is quite correct. Clerical assistance is only in the National Debt office. The brokers only get this sum.

Sir F. BANBURY: The broker has to find a very considerable sum for clerical assistance, and I should be inclined to think that instead of there being any profit there might be a loss. It has been with them for eighty or ninety years, and they have always taken an extraordinary low price, and I suppose they do not like to break the connection that has lasted for so long. I really do not see what is the necessity, on this question of £2,500, for picking out a particularly expert civil servant and putting him in this position. He has nothing very much to do; it is merely ordinary routine work. He has not got any very great decisions to come to, and he is assisted by a Committee of very eminent bankers and others in the City who work for nothing. If the Controller-General is assisted by some of the most eminent bankers and financiers in the City, what on earth is the necessity for appointing a super-man and losing
another £500? I happen to know something about this office, and I do not think it is at all necessary to appoint an exceptionally good man. What has happened at the Treasury? Have we made a saving at the Treasury? Has Sir Thomas Heath's successor received a less salary? If no saving in that direction has been made I do not see the object of this. It rather looks as if an easy berth had been found for a Treasury official who had done very well, and was getting on in life.

Lord R. CECIL: indicated dissent.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not so, then. I understood from my hon. Friend that owing to Sir Thomas Heath's age he would not be very long in the service, that he was near 60, or something like that. Personally, I should think that the increase to the broker was necessary. There is more work to do, and the pay is small, but I do not see any necessity for the increase to the Controller-General from £2,000 to £2,500.

Major ENTWISTLE: The right hon. Baronet who has just spoken has the reputation of being the greatest economist in the House, but I am afraid his armour is not exactly proof, and we have instances where there are limitations to his economical principles or proclivities. We had it the other day when it came to a question of payments to the railways, under their claims, and we have it now as soon as he realises that the broker is a city man who perhaps comes within the ambit of his particular associations in the city. I am sorry he can make any exceptions at all, and I would be much more pleased if he had held to his original speech and moved a reduction in both items. I am all in favour of paying men an adequate wage, but I object to this piecemeal and individualistic way of paying certain salaries. I presume, in addition to his salary, this gentleman would receive a war bonus. If there is any ground of hardship, on account of the cost of living, that would be compensated for by means of a bonus. Why should this salary be increased for this particular individual, if his predecessor was supposed to be sufficiently remunerated by a salary he then received? There are innumerable cases of inadequate salary. We have a scandalous instance in the case of High Court Judges, and a still more scandalous instance in the case of Members of Parliament, and these injus-
tices are not remedied because of the sore financial straits of the country at the present time. Why should we depart from this principle without looking at the whole thing on a broad basis, instead of giving it to an individualistic case, which is tantamount to a reflection on his predecessor in this office, and of his successor. I presume if this had been dealt with purely on the ground of the merits of this particular individual, his successor will have to revert to the old rate, which is a reflection on his successor. This is not the way to deal with these things. If the salaries of Government officials of this type are inadequate, let the Government deal with it fairly and see whether any suggestions they have to make are reasonable at the present time. I heartily support the Motion for a reduction moved by the right hon. Baronet, and wish he had not modified it by his second speech.

Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has withdrawn his opposition to this Vote, as far as the broker is concerned, and that was due probably to the operation of that human kindness of which he is so distinguished an exponent, for he was dealing with what is called a "comrade in arms" in the City, and, naturally, he did not feel inclined to do anything against a gentleman with whom no doubt he has had close business relations in the past. But I would point this out to the right hon. Gentleman, that he and the Secretary to the Treasury both agree that quâ remuneration on the business done, this is a ridiculous sum to allocate to the office. On that we are all agreed. But it should be borne in mind that the position of Government broker in the City is one very much sought after by stock-brokers. It not only increases his status among his follow men, but it has the not inconsiderable advantage of bringing business. Why then should there be a solatium of another £250. I can see no justification for that at all. If my thesis is right—

Sir F. BANBURY: The addition is £500 a year.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The post of Government broker is not unlike the position of a great physician or surgeon at one of our hospitals. The work is undertaken
in accordance with the traditions of an honourable profession, and the positions are accepted, not only without any remuneration, but often at a cost of great addition to personal expenses. Nevertheless, it makes a very great difference in their professional standing, as well as being evidence of the way in which they do good work for the whole community. Therefore I say I do not see any justification for this particular increase, and the objection to increasing the salary of the Comptroller-General—so well voiced by the right hon. Baronet—surely should apply in the same measure to the increase to the broker. This increase has to be read, for some mysterious reason, with a note in very small lettering, to which I have several times drawn attention on Supplementary Estimates, and which reads:
A further sum of £6,100 has been provided in the Supplementary Votes for War Bonus (H.C. 148 & 219) in respect of charges falling on this Vote.
May I tell hon. Members what these mysterious figures relate to. They relate to previous Supplementary Estimates, one brought in last July and the other dealt with last November, and that may be a useful piece of information in dealing with Votes as they arise. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me what relation that note has to the increase he is now asking for. I also wish to support very strongly the protest made by two of my right hon. Friends on this Bench within the last few minutes on the question of Appropriations-in-Aid. I want to emphasise once more how unfair a way it is—I do not say it is a trick at all—of placing Estimates before Members of the Committee. The real increase is not £10 but £2,200, and the beauty of this Appropriation-in-Aid only appears when one reads the exact words—
Amount of fees expected to be received by the Pensions Computation Board in excess of the amount anticipated at the date of presentation of the original Estimate.
They have not got the money. It is no realisation by the sale of stores. It is merely an expectation of fees which may be received by the Pensions Commutation Board. Although dragged in here it has no relation at all to this particular Vote. I suppose these are medical fees.

Mr. BALDWIN: assented.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope that my right hon. Friend in the re-organisation of the Estimates will take into consideration the views that have been expressed in all parts of the Committee on this question of Appropriations-in-Aid.

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD having come with a message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners,

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,

Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £550."

Sir D. MACLEAN: There was another point on which I wanted my right hon. Friend to give us some information. He stated that the reasons which mainly moved the Treasury to the increase of the Comptroller-General's salary were, firstly, the special qualifications of the post, under the new and exacting conditions, and, secondly, that it had been only fair to promise him that, when he left the Treasury, he should not suffer any financial loss during the remaining portion of his official career. Those, I agree, were reasons which, under pre-War conditions, would find almost general support, but we are not now in pre-War conditions. The conditions under which we are living to-day demand from us all the most exacting economy—certainly that is so in my own case—and the Treasury ought to set a good example to the private citizen. Then there is another point upon which I should like further information. As I understand it, the rule is that, when the head of a Department has his salary raised, proportionate increases are granted to his subordinates who are in what I
may call the same class as himself. That is, I understand, the rule which obtains generally in the Civil Service, and certainly in most other branches of civilian administration. If that is so, I should like to know how much more this increase involves in future additional salaries to the Assistant Controller-General. I find, for instance, in the original Estimate that he has an Assistant Controller, four principal clerks, five assistant principal clerks, and then you go on to the second division to which, I suppose, my argument would not apply. But taking those nine officials I should like to know what additions to their salary will in the future fall to them if the Committee grants the request of my right hon. Friend to grant this increase of salary to the Controller-General himself. But assuming I am wrong and that this increase of salary is special to the present owner of the office. If and when he demits his office, what view would the right hon. Gentleman take, if it happens in his time of office, of his successor? Will this addition, which is now made for special reasons as he tells us, become the permanent salary of this particular position? I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman once again the feeling which I am sure is very general throughout the whole Committee, those who are at present and those who are not present, that these increases of salary, which six months ago might have seemed fairly reasonable under the then circumstances, as things are to-day are really not justified.

Mr. G. BARKER: I have listened to a good many Debates in the last fortnight, and the great cry in the House has been for reductions in wages. We have had a Debate on unemployment, and we have been told that heavy taxation is one of the causes of unemployment. This may be a very eminent civil servant—he may have all the abilities that are necessary, and every honour and dignity, but he is already in receipt of an income of £38 a week, and we have the cool proposal that his salary should be increased by £10 per week. This proposal is made at a time when we have a million men unemployed. If it is good economy to reduce wages, this economy must be general in its application. I think there is a limit to the reduction of wages, and there should also be a limit to the increase of salaries. There can really be no personal necessity for an increase of this servant's salary,
and I think some of the criticism which has been levelled at the working classes in the last fortnight could very well be directed against this Vote. If the Committee goes to a Division, as I hope it will, I shall certainly cast my vote against this increase. I think it cannot be justified under the circumstances that we find to-day, and, while we have these attacks levelled at labour, and a general cry for the cheapening of production, I think it is not permissible for this House to increase the salary of any servant who is getting £38 per week while we have a million people who are altogether unemployed and will be compelled to live upon the meagre sum of £1 per week.

Mr. MOSLEY: I rise to add my protest to those already advanced against this increase in the salary of two civil servants. It really reflects a most remarkable state of mind on the part of the Government at this juncture in our affairs to be in the habit of coming to the House to request increases of the salaries of bureaucrats. The argument has been advanced that these two gentlemen could command larger salaries in business than they do in the Civil Service. That is no argument at all. Once the Civil Service begins to compete in terms of money with business for the best brains in the country, the competition is never ended and we cannot possibly compete successfully with business. There are other factors surely which attract a man to Government service beyond merely mercenary conditions. The power and the prestige which attach to a Civil Service appointment will always attract the best brains of the country to the Civil Service, always providing the salaries are adequate to provide a man with a sufficient sum for the proper maintenance of his family and the education of his children. It is seriously contended that salaries respectively of £2,000 a year and £1,500 are not sufficient inducement to persuade men to remain in the Civil Service, and that they may be tempted away to business. Does anyone seriously contend that men cannot adequately support families on incomes of this amount, cannot educate their children and maintain a position in life commensurate with the dignity of their position? At this moment when it is suggested in many quarters that an all-round reduction in wages may be necessary and in some quarters it is
even suggested that a reduction in real wages may be necessary, can you imagine any effect upon public opinion more detrimental to the national interest than these eternal demands for additions to the salaries of bureaucrats? After all in these days every section of the community is affected.
There are few people of the class to which these gentlemen belong who are not worse off than they were before the War, and yet in a Supplementary Estimate of this nature we find that the only class who are to be exempt from the financial difficulties which prevail to-day are those very bureaucrats who are responsible for spending the money which necessitates taxation. Can hon. Members imagine any moral effect which could be worse than this, that the people who are responsible for the spending of the money are the very last to feel the ill-effects consequent upon that spending? On moral considerations alone the Committee ought to be deterred from hastily increasing the salaries of bureaucrats in the way demanded in this Estimate. Salaries of £2,000 and £1,500 respectively are more than adequate to maintain any man and his family in comfort, and I can conceive no reason why at this juncture in our national affairs, they should be increased, and unless some more adequate explanation is given I shall most certainly vote for a reduction of the amount to be spent.

Colonel L. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether in addition to the increase of salary that is to be given these bureaucrats have shared in the War bonus for which a sum of £6,100 was provided for this Department in the supplementary War bonus during the closing days of last year?

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I should like to protest against the increase of the salaries of civil servants. The Civil Service is becoming rather a privileged class. They are to a certain extent privileged, because the majority of them have pensions, and it is impossible to compare them with people in business who have no pensions and have all the worries of business, not knowing whether later in life they will be perfectly comfortable, as is the case of the civil servant who has a pension coming from the Government. That is the great dif-
ference between them. Seeing that the civil servants have pensions to look forward to when they retire I do not see why they should have their salaries increased in this way. If they had no pension I could understand the matter, because they should have enough salary to save for their old age. There is a good deal to be said for the point of view raised by my hon. Friend, who mentioned the fact that there is a movement for the reduction of the wages of labour. Wages are coming down in many industries, and surely, in this respect an example of self-denial should be set by the governing body of civil servants. If that example is set from above, surely it will begin to operate below. Unless an example is set by the Government it is difficult for an example to be set by the private citizen. If the Government will set an example in economy it will be followed by the ordinary citizen and we shall have national economy.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I do not think we have had a satisfactory reply as to the reason for these proposed increases of salary. I must, however, take strong exception to the remarks of the last speaker with respect to Civil servants. He seems to think that the Civil servant because he is entitled to a pension is not as good a man as he might otherwise be.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I never suggested that.

Mr. McLAREN: It is true that a Civil servant has a pension, but if he had not a pension he would very likely be getting a bigger salary. It means that he is working for less money than he would otherwise have in private enterprise, and the remarks of the hon. Member were very uncalled for. I think, however, that the Minister ought to give a further explanation. Unless a satisfactory reason is given we are right in going to a Division.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There were at least two questions of public interest which I hope my right hon. Friend will answer.

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend need not be anxious about the point he raised in regard to the increase of the salaries of subordinate officers as a consequence of the proposed increase of the salary of the Comptroller-General, because I understand that in this case the
salary is a personal one, and there are no advances in salaries made simply because, for the time being, the head of the office carries a higher salary than before. The salary is entirely an ad hoc salary. It applies only to the person concerned, exactly in the same way as happened when, for a short time, a special salary was attached to the office of the Lord Privy Seal held by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), and an assurance was given when the first Estimate was passed that it was a personal salary, and that the next holder would receive the salary attaching to the office, which used to be £2,000 a year. That was stated before the Committee which investigated Ministers' salaries. The next holder of this office will revert to the old figure pertaining to the office. My right hon. Friend made some fun about the Appropriations-in-Aid. He knows perfectly well that we have to make an Estimate for Appropriations-in-Aid just as we do about expenditure. The calculations for Appropriations-in-Aid on this particular Vote are made from the information which we have in our possession at the present time as to the number of men who are presenting themselves for commutation of pension. I should like to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) and the hon. Member for Hull (Colonel L. Ward). They were under the impression that we are providing for two extra bureaucrats.

Mr. MOSLEY: No.

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member for Hull used the term, "two bureaucrats." There is only one bureaucrat, and one-Government broker concerned. The hon. Member (Colonel L. Ward) was not in the House in the early part of the Debate when I said that one of the increases is an increase for the Government broker.

Colonel L. WARD: Can the right, hon. Gentleman say whether the Member of the Civil Service who is to receive an increase of salary has been receiving war bonus during the current year, and, if so, how much?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that that arises on this Vote, but I think it almost certain that he is receiving war bonus, because war bonus is being gener-
ally paid. My hon. Friend can raise that question in order on the Estimate for War Bonus, which will be taken within the next week or two.

Colonel L. WARD: On the question of raising this gentleman's salary, the Committee is entitled to know how much money he is receiving from the public purse.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot now discuss the general principle of war bonus.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What the hon. Member is asking, and what I wish to ask, is how much bonus is this gentleman receiving? If my hon. Friend cannot tell me, that is an end of the matter, but if he can, the Committee would like to know.

Mr. BALDWIN: I would not like to commit myself without reference, but I think about £500 a year.

Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £550."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 130.

Division No. 16]
AYES.
[8.58 p.m.


Atkey, A. R.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Polson, Sir Thomas


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Irving, Dan
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Johnstone, Joseph
Royce, William Stapleton.


Clynas, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sexton, James


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lawson, John J.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Stevens, Marshall


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Swan, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Mills, John Edmund
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Glanville, Harold James
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Hallas, Eldred
Nield, Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Mosley.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Forestler-Walker, L.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Forrest, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Armitage, Robert
France, Gerald Ashburner
Mitchell, William Lane


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Moles, Thomas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gould, James C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morris, Richard


Barnston, Major Harry
Gregory, Holman
Neal, Arthur


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sit R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bigland, Alfred
Hailwood, Augustine
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Percy, Charles


Breese, Major Charles E.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perring, William George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Briggs, Harold
Higham, Charles Frederick
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hinds, John
Preston, W. R.


Bruton, Sir James
Hood, Joseph
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hotchkin, Captain Staff[...] Vere
Purchase, H. G.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Randies, Sir John S.


Carr, W. Theodore
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Rankin, Captain James S.


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, N (Birm., Ladywood)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Remer, J. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lorden, John William
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lort-Wllliams, J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lynn, R. J.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Stanton, Charles B.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Starkey, Captain John R.


Stewart, Gershom
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Sugden, W. H.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Turton, E. R.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Captain Guest and Colonel Sir R.


Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Sanders.


Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Wise, Frederick



Original Question put, and agreed to.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £63,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It will perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain how this Supplementary Estimate comes to be put forward. Hon. Members will observe that the Estimate is divided into two parts. There is a sum of £44,000 which becomes necessary to provide the staff consequent upon the housing schemes which my Department is undertaking for local authorities. I wish to make it quite clear that although the sum appears to be chargeable to the taxpayer, it is in reality recoverable. The whole of this expenditure is being charged to the schemes which we are carrying out, and as the schemes are completed the whole of the amount will be returned as appropriations-in-aid, and hardly any charge at all will fall upon the Imperial taxes. If hon. Members will look at the foot of page 16, par. D, they will see that we are taking for this financial year £17,000 as an appropriation-in-aid on this Account. The reason why this amount is not the full amount is that in the preliminary stages of the carrying out of these schemes a large amount of work of a technical character is required, and it becomes chargeable only as the schemes go on. It is really in the nature of an overhead charge on the various schemes. The second sum under Sub-head A, namely, £26,000, arises, owing to the increased cost of living, and owing to the fact that a very considerable proportion of the temporary technical staff in my Department do not share in the war bonus which is paid to Civil ser-
vants. The cost of living having risen in the year from 130 to 176 per cent., it has been considered only right and proper that an increase should be made in the salaries of the staff, although I may say that the increase is not in any way as high as the rise in the war bonus; in fact, it is very much below it. Practically the whole of the officers included in this sum, 532, are technical officers of a lower grade. They are not established officers. This was the only method of meeting the hardship they were undoubtedly suffering. The average increase does not amount to more than £1 a week. Let me anticipate criticism. It is quite true that the cost of living is going down, but this money is for the last financial year and these people have had to bear the higher cost of living without having received what was necessary to compensate them, for it I do not think the Committee will seriously question the propriety of the amount, for it is really a very modest increase for a hard-working and deserving class of officials.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has this money been paid out already, before we vote the sum?

Sir A. MOND: I would not like to be definite, but I think the money has been authorised by the Treasury and has been paid. The Civil Service bonus was agreed to and has been paid during the past year. It is really an accidental technical point in my Department that this class of officer did not come under the war bonus award of the Civil Service generally. The only other item to which I will draw attention relates to railway travelling. Having a large number of building schemes in progress in different parts of the country a very considerable amount of travelling is involved. £6,000 of the £10,000 represents the increased cost of railway fares and subsistence allowance for the general office staff. It arises as a Supplementary Estimate because railway fares were increased during the year, and we could not anticipate that increase when the original Estimate was framed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move "that the Vote be reduced by £20,000."
Perhaps the Committee will take the trouble to follow me in a reference to the original Estimate, by which alone it is possible to understand what is the present position. The original Estimate is Class 2, Vote 26, "Office of Works and Public Buildings." Dealing solely with the two heads which are here, A and B, "Salaries, Wages, and Allowances" and "Travelling Expenses," I would direct attention to this, that this time last year, when the Estimates must have been pretty well prepared, as they were published later, the sum then asked and later granted for salaries, wages, and allowances was £455,000. That was an increase on 1919–20 of £176,610. That was the increase with which they started last year. In regard to travelling expenses, the sum asked for last year was £20,000, and that was an increase on 1919–20 of £5,000. There was also granted to my right hon. Friend a further sum by way of additions to salaries of £59,600 as his Department's share of a Supplementary Vote given in July and another Supplementary Vote given in November.

Sir A. M0ND: They were war bonuses.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like to know whether the whole of this increase of £70,000 is for men who received no share whatever of the war bonus.

Sir A. MOND: £26,000 is for people who received no share of the bonus.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The difference between £26,000 and £70,000, namely, £44,000, therefore goes to officials who received two plums in the course of the present year from two separate Supplementary Estimates. My right hon. Friend comes to us to-day and asks us to grant to these an extra £26,000. That is four increases. First of all, last year compared with 1919–20, then the two increases given in these supplementary bonus gifts, and now this last one. What justification is there for it? The cost of living, we are delighted to know, is declining, and whatever may be said for those who have not received their share of the bonus does not apply to those who have.

Sir A. MOND: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the position, but the £44,000 is for new services and new staff.

Sir D. MACLEAN: But those who are coming in as new officials are started on this elevated basis. On this Vote we cannot go into the general policy of my right hon. Friend's Department on the question of building houses, but the issue here is whether these officials are sufficiently paid or not. Passing from that, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to Sub-head A:
Provision for increased technical and clerical staff for work in connection with the erection of houses by the Office of Works as agents for various local authorities proceeding with housing schemes approved by the Ministry of Health.
On Friday last my right hon. Friend got a Vote passed through this House, but with considerable difficulty, and one of the points on which the Committee felt most hostile to the request of the right hon. Gentleman was the purchase of premises where they were going in for new scientific research on the question of how to build houses—

Sir F. BANBURY: So that they do not tumble down in ten years.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Here is some revelation, under Sub-head A, of what it is going to cost. Now I come to Sub-head B, "Travelling Expenses," and I think I must read that to the Committee again. It says:
Additional sum required to meet the increased cost of railway fares, and subsistence allowances, and for travelling in connection with the erection of houses for local authorities.
As I have already pointed out, they got on the original Estimate £20,000 for it, and with this additional sum they are going to spend £30,000 for travelling expenses for this Department. What justification can there be for that? If the Committee will stand that, I suppose they will stand anything. I wish everyone were here, not to hear me, but to hear what other Members will say after I sit down. I wish they could come here and hear what was said, not by people who are taking a purely party point at all, but by men who are genuinely concerned at the reckless rate of extravagance that is constantly progressing, and who desire to see it stopped somehow. People ask, "What is the use of saving £10,000 on travelling when you spend millions of pounds otherwise?" Every business man knows that if you want to stop extravagance you must get hold of the first item
of expense you can, whether it is £500 or £5,000. That will spread about a warning to the other people, and they will know, to use a common phrase, that the boss is on the lookout. I wonder whether the great spending Departments are getting warning that their masters, the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons, means business, and that the House means business, with regard to these things? Do they mean business, or do they not? Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to press for this item? I would like to know how many of these officials travel first class and how many of them stay at the best hotels, and what grade of official comes into these huge expenses. That is what the Committee wants to know.
My right hon. Friend says, "The House of Commons need not bother at all. I am going to get all these expenses back." When is he going to get them back, and at whose expense? The ratepayer's. [HON. MEMBERS: "The taxpayers."] These expenses are to be charged to the local authorities under their building schemes, and they have got to repay to the Treasury these overhead charges for which my right hon. Friend is asking to-night. What about the ratepayer, burdened and crushed down as we now know with £149,000,000, as compared with £73,000,000 when the War broke out. My right hon. Friend, in his airy way, says. "It is all right, I am going to get it back." I do not know that he will get it back, because some of these local authorities are going straight into bankruptcy. Let me tell my right hon. Friend it is a very poor lock-out for his recovering a penny of this sum within ten years. An hon. Friend behind me refers to the County of Monmouth. I should not be at all surprised to find that the increase in rates in the County of Monmouth is not one penny short of 95 per cent., as between now and 1914. According to some of my hon. Friends, what difference does it make apparently how much money is spent if it is going to be all right in the end? There never will be an end to this kind of thing, and if there is, it will not be the sort of end some of them think. These matters require to be looked at in a practical way, because the facts are very crushing to the people who are bearing the burden of them, and who are standing in a terrific hailstorm of rates and taxes. I ask the Committee to give
them some shelter and relief from the burdens which fall on them by supporting the Motion I have made.

Mr. MYERS: I am not at all impressed by the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. In looking over this Vote, and having regard to the fact that I am going to support it, I express no opinion as to whether the travelling expenses to these particular sites where houses have been erected are reasonable or unreasonable, or whether the officials of the Department make three journeys where they ought to make two, or travel first-class when they ought to travel third. I agree that these considerations are real in this Vote, but they are quite minor ones in comparison with the general structure of the items we have under consideration. Neither do I follow the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about the cost to the local authorities, because if the local authorities have to erect these houses they have either to pay the money over to private individuals or to the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) presides. It is a remarkable fact, but it is true, that these schemes which he is conducting all over the country will carry all those expenses included in this Vote, and that he can carry out a cheaper job than if the same work had been done by private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] All the evidence and facts available have proved that beyond question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, and much of this criticism from whichever side of the Committee it comes is directed, not against the working of the Department, but against its success. However exorbitant these charges may be, when they are all put together and imposed on the local authorities for the work done, those authorities will get much more relief than if the same work were carried out by private builders in the country.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: The other day, when that glorious and interesting right hon. Gentleman, who is sometimes Secretary for the Air and is sometimes travelling in the Colonies, presented his Estimates, he compared his Air Estimate to a plum tree which produced plums. He did not tell us much about it. Possibly to-night it might be just as well to compare the right hon. Gentleman's Estimate to a plum tree, and
see where we can prune it down and cut it away a bit. It is somewhat interesting to note the extraordinary variety of places in which he seems to have his officials situated. In the original Estimate, on page 124, you will find that he has been enabled under the architects' division to increase the number of his architects for this year, compared with last year, from nine to 18. Again, his assistant architects have gone up from 20 to 34, and second-class assistant architects from 25 to 50. I would like to know if these individuals have again had an increase in their number. But the really interesting part of this increase is in the footnote. We find that, as regards the architects:
One receives £100 per annum from Class IV (2) and £50 per annum from Brompton Cemetery Funds. Another stationed in China and Japan occupies an official residence and receives a foreign service allowance of £350 per annum.
I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of the present increase is going to this individual, and whether his official residence is actually in China or Japan.

Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. We are surely not discussing the main Estimates.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I was endeavouring to find out what proportion of this additional Supplementary Estimate, if any, went to this particular individual.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is a Supplementary Estimate, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman himself to say that this was for an increased staff for an entirely new service.

Sir A. MOND: Not a new service, but a new staff.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is for a new staff, it opens up a wider question, and, of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman can use the original Estimates for a statement of facts in so far as they help the Committee to understand this, but he must not discuss anything which has been passed previously.

Lieut. - Commander WILLIAMS: I thank you for your guidance, and I will endeavour merely to elicit from the right
hon. Gentleman where his new Estimates are expended. I do not wish to carry him any further into these foreign researches, but I might remind him that further on there are Estimates for places like Constantinople. For all I know, he may have extended his sphere of activity to Jerusalem or any other place.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is getting too wide.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I will go back to the original Estimate, and perhaps I may be allowed to point out, as regards Section A, we not only have a considerable increase at the present time of something like £70,000, for which some small amount of explanation has been given, but early in the year there was an increase of over £170,000, making for the whole year a total increase of something in the neighbourhood of £240,000 for this one branch in salaries, wages and allowances for the year. In other words, you have very nearly doubled the amount which was expended in 1919 and 1920, and this at a time when the whole nation is absolutely burdened with taxation, and is groaning under the burden which is being imposed on it by a countless number of officials, who invariably interfere with almost every line of business at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now, as I understood him, that as regards Section A, the £26,000, there would be no bonus to these particular persons, who had an increase because of the additional rise in prices. As I understood his statement, these people come under rather a different scheme from the ordinary Civil Service. Will their salaries be lowered just as the ordinary Civil Service salaries are lowered, on a four months' basis, or will they be reduced immediately the cost of living goes down?
As regards Sub-head B an additional sum of £10,000 is required for travelling expenses, and earlier in the year we had another additional sum of £5,000. In other words, the addition this year is almost exactly double that of last year. I do not think railway rates have doubled since last year. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman has a very excellent explanation, but I would like to know what additional work these people have been doing since last year. How many additional journeys have they taken, and
what has been the length of the journeys? The last time the right hon. Gentleman produced his Supplementary Estimates he said a very considerable amount of money was for staffs in the various housing schemes, and in one particular case he himself had been engaged in building houses. We had very considerable difficulty at that time in finding out what was the real cost of those buildings. Will he tell us what further sum is being apportioned, out of the present additional Estimate, to the building of these houses? May we conclude that a large part is additional cost for the buildings which he told us in the autumn were so much cheaper than if done under private enterprise? I would like a clear and definite answer on that question at any rate.

Mr. LORDEN: I am very much surprised that a new Department is starting at this time when everybody is looking forward to Departments being scrapped. I have listened to the Debate so far as it has gone, and I am simply appalled at the idea of this sort of camouflage which has been used with regard to the recovery of this amount. It reminds me of a snake eating its own tail. All the money is supposed to be got back from the local authorities. But what are the local authorities responsible for? All that they are responsible for is a penny rate per annum and the whole excess beyond that comes from the Treasury. Therefore, you are charging us something here which is in the nature of a snake eating its own tail. I understand we are not entitled to go into the principle or the policy that enables the Office of Works to start on a Department which is nationalising building by a back door, to which I very strongly object. I object to it in toto; I think it is a mistake. It is always known that the Government and municipalities cannot do building work anything like private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can prove it up to the hilt, years and years long before the War. They cannot touch it. There is the very fact of the official. You have got here a sum of £30,000 in the year for travelling alone for the Department that is only dealing with the row houses they are building. I understand they have only got something like 2,000 houses in hand, and yet they are spending £30,000 a year in travelling to do this amount of work. It seems preposterous that we should be asked to pass
Estimates like this. I have tried to support the Government whenever I could, but I cannot support such schemes as these. The hon. Member for Spen Valley said these houses were being produced much cheaper, but hon. Members should go and look at the scheme at Camberwell. There the houses are band-boxes, and the way they are built is not a credit to any Department. I will try and keep off a question of policy, because I know it is not in order. I would like to know if all this £80,000 has been spent on the construction of 2,000 houses. Where are the overhead charges? We have been told these houses are being built more cheaply, but the real fact is that they have only finished very few of them and they cannot know what they are costing, and they cannot tell us what they are going to cost.
It is true the Department imagine they are going to effect a saving, but imagination with them goes a very long way, and that is the only thing you can say with regard to these Estimates. With regard to the cost of the houses, it is pure imagination, and the hope that they will be done cheaper. I give the First Commissioner of Works credit for hoping they will be cheaper, for I feel convinced in my own mind that they will cost a great deal more than if he had put them out to private enterprise, or even left the local authorities to deal with them. The right hon. Gentleman jumps in where there has been some little difficulty, and when the Minister of Health has got tied into a knot over building schemes, and he does not care what they cost. I hope we shall give the Government a lesson, and decide that these new Departments should be scrapped, and that we are not going to have any more of them.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Spen Valley said it was quite possible that these various items were quite excessive, but he did not care about that, because he was in favour of the programme which these items were to carry out. The hon. Member said the country would save money because he was sure these schemes would cost less than if they had been done by private enterprise. That is a very doubtful statement, because, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated, very few of these houses have been completed. We will admit that a few have been completed,
but it is quite impossible to say what the cost of the whole will be. When you have got the cost of the whole, you have then to find out some place where smaller houses have been erected by private enterprise, and find what is the difference in the cost. I do not venture to say what that difference is because I do not know; and, in all humility, I say that the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not know, and until he does know his duty is to vote against a sum of money which he himself has said is excessive and ought not to have been included in the Estimate.
Let us look at the Estimate for a moment. The first thing which strikes one is that there is in addition to this sum of £80,000 a sum of £59,600 charged upon some other Vote. I think we shall be able to discuss that other Vote when we come to it. Last Friday we had a separate Estimate brought in and there was a statement that there would be something further than that amount. Only six days since the right hon. Gentleman extracted from our pockets a very considerable sum, and now he comes down here for more. He is like Oliver Twist asking for more, and when we give him more he is not satisfied and he comes and asks for a further sum. I think there will be a further Supplementary Estimate next week probably asking for still more money. We do not know when we are to come to the end of the activities of this particular Department. I should like to know whether the £30,000 for travelling expenses has been spent entirely upon the travelling expenses in connection with the new service of building houses.

Sir A. MOND: Only £4,000 out of the £10,000 is for the new service, and the other is for the old service.

Sir F. BANBURY: Now I feel sertain that the hon. Member for Spen Valley will vote for the reduction, because he is looking forward to new houses. We know now that out of this £10,000 there is only £4,000 going to new services and therefore, he will be consistent and will vote against the other £6,000, which is not being spent upon the object so dear to the hon. Member's heart. I want to know what the other £26,000 is going to be spent upon. Is there going to be any more voyages to Egypt or to the Pyramids?

Sir A. MOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that my journeys there were paid for out of public funds.

Sir F. BANBURY: Nothing of the sort. An hon. Member opposite said that railway fares have not doubled. It is true that they have not doubled last year, although they increased 25 per cent. last year, but the increase has been 75 per cent. altogether. How is it that the right hon Gentleman's Department spends £26,000 on travelling round the country? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) alluded to an additional sum which is required for these increased rates of pay of the temporary technical staff owing to the increased cost of living. What does this staff cost? It seems to be going to get £26,000 plus an unknown sum owing to the increased cost of living. I was under the impression that a Government Department regulated its statistics to show what the cost of living was. I do not think they show it, but they purport to. Now the cost of living is coming down, so what under the circumstances is the necessity of adding £26,000 to this temporary staff in addition to a sum which they have been receiving before? What are this temporary technical staff? The Member for Peebles alluded to discussions which we had last Friday in which the right hon. Gentleman informed us that it was necessary to spend £5,000 on a building in order to put in a technical staff to carry out investigations so that the new houses they were going to build were not going to fall down in ten years.
I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) will agree with me that if there is a danger of these houses falling down in ten years it would be better to go to private enterprise and spend a bit more so that they should stand up for a reasonable time. Now you have got the house and you are going to put in a temporary technical staff who are going to get some unknown sum in addition to this increase of £26,000. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now is an experienced builder. Docs he think it necessary to pay £26,000? If he was building 2,000 houses would he pay £26,000 in addition to the ordinary rates of pay to a temporary technical staff? The hon. Gentleman only smiles and keeps his hands in his pockets, which I think shows that he would not at any rate
be guilty of this extravagance, come to the question of the Appropriation-in-Aid, and of course, that statement that it is really coming out of one pocket into another is quite correct, but all expenditure in the end resolves itself into one of two things, either the taxpayer pays or the ratepayer pays. When you come to look at the majority of people who compose the taxpayers and ratepayers, they are not the idle rich, but a large number of struggling people, more often than not worse off than the people they pay and employ. Therefore I hope this Committee will repeat the lesson of Friday and show the Office of Works that if it is going to become a building firm it must carry on its business in the same way as a private building firm would carry it on, and be careful that they go into the various expenses that may be necessary and see that their staff does not travel unnecessarily, that it goes third class and not first, and see if it is necessary to have all these temporary people with all these increases of salary to decide whether or not houses, if built in the ordinary way, can exist for the period for which these houses have existed for a great number of years.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: The Committee is showing a wise instinct in looking into this matter carefully, even if it be true that the money or some of it is to be, recovered from the ratepayers, because we should be as jealous of burdens put upon us as ratepayers as of those put upon us as taxpayers. The view taken by an hon. Member is the right one, that these burdens will come back in a few years on the taxpayers directly, and therefore it is our business, although it is going to be recovered in the first instance by charges on local authorities. I am rather surprised at the callousness of a hon. Friend of mine behind me for one of the Divisions of Monmouthshire as to the effect of these figures on the ratepayers. He said, as a shot, without referring to the documents, that he would hazard that the increase in rates from his county, comparing now and 1913–14, was about 95 per cent. I have had the opportunity of looking it up, and I find that the average of the urban districts in Monmouthshire is actually 125 per cent., so my hon. Friend gravely understated it
rather than overstated it. I come to Supplementary Estimates by the Office of Works rather with a presumption in favour of the Department. I have the honour and pleasure of knowing the permanent head of that Department, and I have often been in conversation with him as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and otherwise, and have often been impressed by the way in which he tries, often fighting against influences in other places to make the best of the money put at his disposal, but that ought not to prevent one looking at this in a businesslike way. This expenditure arises over houses, and one has to ask oneself, is there good reason why the Department should have found things different through the course of a year from that they ought to have expected when they framed their Estimates at the beginning of the year. That is the keynote of the justification which any Minister ought to make of his expenditure. If he can show that circumstances have arisen for which his Department was entirely unprepared, then he has a good reason why the House should vote this extra amount of money. If the Committee will throw their minds back to the time when these Estimates were framed they will remember that there was then an extraordinary expectation as to the amount of housing to be done during the year. The homes for heroes to live in were going to spring up like mushrooms under the hands of the Minister of Health and other Departments all over the country. The actual housing has fallen far short of what we were lead to expect. It is relevant to have these two considerations in mind. One is to see did the Office of Works make some mistake in the expectation of having to do this extra housing work, in which case they must have committed an error of judgment, which we may or may not condone, or whether they were as optimistic of their task in this housing programme as even the Minister of Health himself, and is therefor this extra expenditure really unjustifiable and inexcusable I know it is not in order to discuss the policy of the original Vote. But it is to the point to see whether in these particular items they did or did not take a reasonable amount of extra money to cover this considerable extra housing programme that they anticipated having to do. If one looks into the original Vote it is quite astounding to see how much
extra money they took in the first instance, and how apparently thoroughly well prepared they were for their new duties under the housing scheme. They were very full up with work of all sorts during the War, some of which was, I believe, most valuable, and was carried out cheaper than it could have been done by other agencies; but when it comes to a post-War year there was under these headings a considerable increase over their actual War expenditure. We find, for instance, in the architects division they made provision for 34 assistant architects and 25 assistant architects second class, and the increased number of draughtsmen and technical assistants more than doubled the sum they asked Parliament for, and which we voted for that purpose. Whereas in the previous year the Estimate had been £30,000, the Estimate in this year was £75,000. Therefore, they were entirely prepared as these figures show for a large expansion of their work, and that makes it very difficult to see why this extra sum of £44,000 is required for the same sort of purpose. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) said he was not certain whether they had set out the details with regard to the temporary clerical staff they now ask us to amplify so greatly. They did. £30,000 was asked for last year, and this was increased by £15,000 to £45,000 this year. In view of the fact that they seem to have been entirely alive to the position and to the work they would have to do, it seems to me to be only miscalculation and mistake and extravagance that they now have to ask for so large an increased sum at the present time, and under these circumstances I shall have great pleasure in supporting the reduction which has been moved.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), if I understood him correctly, supported this Vote on two grounds, first, because it was for the provision of houses—for the working-classes chiefly, and, secondly, because these houses would be more cheaply built in this way than they would be by private enterprise. What are the facts? I happen to have interested myself in this matter, and it so happens I asked the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions regarding the number of houses during the last few days, and by accident
I happen to have in my pocket the last answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. The number of houses actually completed by local authorities is 116. The accommodation is in three types. The number of houses completed in each type is 36 of one, 76 of another, and 4 of another, making the total of 116. The actual cost of these houses cannot yet be definitely stated as none of the schemes of which these houses form part is in a sufficiently advanced state of construction to enable general charges to be allocated. Can anybody imagine a more hopeless Department to construct houses economically when at the end of a long period of time, I presume a year, at least, they are not yet in a position to tell me after I had pressed the, question on more than one occasion what the cost of one of these houses is? I submit that this Vote is in the circumstances quite unjustifiable and should not be passed by this Committee. Only one other point I wish to touch upon. Who is to bear the burden, and why is it the burden is being forced upon those particular people? The burden has undoubtedly to be borne by the taxpayers. It is not an uncommon remark to hear from a borough councillor, particularly from the type of modern borough councillor, largely representing the Labour party: "Why should we not have these houses? The very worst that can fall upon us is the burden we have to bear in any event, namely, a penny rate." That is the real crux of the question, and without saying any more I am utterly opposed to this Vote. I certainly have no desire to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. We all appreciate his difficulty, and there is nothing personal in this. It is entirely a matter which concerns the Department over which he presides.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is generally a consistent economist, but he has lost his reputation this week. Only a night or two ago we heard him pleading for £21,000,000 to be paid to the railway companies, of one of which he is chairman, while to-day he is condemning us for supporting a Vote of this sort. His consistency; to my mind, has fallen to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. MacLean) has been inquiring where this money is
to come from. I wonder if he would have raised this point if these houses were being built by private enterprise. We should have heard nothing at all about it. The money would have been found somewhere then. It would have been found in exactly the same place as it has to be found now. He knows that very well. Does he think any local authority has commenced a housing scheme without the intention of paying for it? Whatever system it is done under, whether by the guild system or direct labour or private enterprise or through the Office of Works, the ratepayers will eventually pay for these houses. So that, as far as that is concerned, we are in exactly the same position. Another hon. Member spoke about "band-boxes." Under private enterprise the plans for these houses would have been the same as they are now. There would have been no difference at all as far as this is concerned.
This is merely a fight for private enterprise, and, to my mind, it takes a good bit of effrontery to stand up for private enterprise as hon. Members do after the experiences of the War. The War would have been lost if it had been left to private enterprise. The nation had to take all the industries into its own hands, and nobody knows that better than hon. Members in this House. Because the Office of Works is building houses for certain local authorities, the whole thing is wrong because a few private contractors are not making several hundreds or thousands of pounds. Less than a month ago I went with a deputation from one of the authorities in the constituency I represent, and they were pleading with the Minister of Health to allow them to build themselves. They had on one particular job no fewer than five contractors, each of whom had his own clerical staff and so on, and they wanted to do it by direct labour. They had had experience of that before, and they knew that they could do it much better and for less money than they were in employing these contractors. That was less than a month ago. I venture to say that under any unified system it would have been done much cheaper than it was done then. As far as travelling expenses are concerned, a good part is taken up in the £21,000,000 for which the right hon. Baronet pleaded so hard the other night.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has made a statement which is quite inaccurate. I never pleaded for the £21,000,000. The Vote was brought in by the Government, and it was brought in in order to carry out a bargain they had made. The Government took over the property of the railway companies, and told them how to run the railways and how much to pay the men. It did not matter to us in the least.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am quite aware of that. I know the Government brought in the Vote. There was opposition to it, as there is to this Vote, and the right hon. Baronet supported the Government, and did a bit of special pleading in order to induce the Opposition to agree with his point of view. As far as travelling expenses are concerned, we want them kept down to the lowest possible limits. We have no interest in spending more than ought to be spent, either on travelling or on subsistence allowances, because it is our own people who suffer in the long run. The money has eventually to come out of their pockets, and therefore we hold that there should be the strictest supervision over all this expenditure. The real point of this attack, however, is to be found in the fact that the Office of Works are carrying through these undertakings, and that some private contractor is not getting any profit out of them. We heard a few weeks ago a very important speech by the Minister who brought in this Vote, and he gave certain figures and comparisons which told badly against the private contractor. It is for that reason we support this Vote. We believe the work can be better done in this way. Our experience indeed tells us it can be better done by these means than by private contractors. The latter are really fighting for their existence, and, as far as members of this House are concerned, they occupy no doubt the stronger position. I repeat, we support this Vote, holding at the same time that travelling and other expenses should be kept within the lowest possible limits. I believe that building can be done better by direct labour, by the guild system or any other system, than it can by private, enterprise.

Sir H. NIELD: We have just listened to a very interesting speech, but we all know that the bed rock that underlies it is the principle of general collectivism versus individualism. It is nothing more
and nothing less. They are perfectly frank about it; the hon. Member for Spen Valley was perfectly frank and honest when he said he would support it. What we complain about is that the Government, who have said so much about getting rid of superfluous officials, should be now getting more, and that we, who for upwards of two years have been pledged to our constituents to put an end to the overbearing bureaucracy which was battening on the taxpayers of this country, find ourselves confronted to-day with an Estimate which means a still further increase in the number of bureaucrats employed. It is not a question at all of doing work by direct labour or by contractors. There is this difference, if we are to discuss that point, that, whereas you make your contract beforehand with your eyes open and with competent technical advisers to advise you as to the tenders that come in, and you know the cost, when it is in the hands of a Government Department you cannot tell what is going to be added to the cost, and you have no control over it until the money is spent, when you are told that you cannot help yourselves, but must pay the bill. It is not fair to the Committee or to the country to keep presenting these Supplementary Estimates. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles to-night what these sums of money really mean when added to the original Estimate and to the intermediate Supplementary Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Acland) has also pointed out how loosely these Estimates are drafted. They did provide a very large sum of money for possible contingencies, and that is all gone, further contingencies have been provided for, and that provision is all gone, and now we are face to face with this additional Estimate of £80,000. That is what it really comes to. It is £63,000 nominally, but it is really £80,000, because of the pious hope that you are going to get £17,000 back from the local authorities. It is absurd to talk about getting money back in that way. This is really another instance of attempts upon the taxpayer which ought never to be made. It is no pleasure to me to speak against Government expenditure; it is no pleasure to me to give votes against this Government, which, I am convinced, is the only Government
that can be found at the present time to carry on the affairs of this country; but it is my bounden duty, in fulfilment of the pledges I have given to my constituents, and recollecting the thousands of homes that are now reduced by taxation and high prices to such a condition that every penny has to be looked at narrowly by those who at one time might have been considered to be in a position of fair comfort—it is my bounden duty again to enter my most emphatic protest. If the fate of the Government depended on it, I would risk that fate rather than be false to those pledges which I have given.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I desire to add my protest to the others which have been made against the formation of what seems to be an entirely new Department, and also to call attention to the piece of information given to the Committee by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour). There have been erected in the course of the year 116 houses, while the amount of money that seems to have been spent on officials is close on £80,000. In other words, the money for building schemes seems to have been spent to a great extent on officials and not on houses. As to the temporary staff having £26,000 for increased cost of living, I should like also to protest. As we go through these Estimates, we pass enormous sums voted to officials for War bonus and increased cost of living, and, during the present time of financial crisis through which the country is passing, when we are all hoping that wages in some industries may fall, it does seem absurd that we have to vote these large sums to these officials. I should also like to protest against the large amount for travelling expenses, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what class these officials travel when they are travelling for the housing scheme. Do they travel first or third class? It is a very important point, because there is a feeling about that the officials in these Ministries continually travel first class. The other night there was a protest that only officials who receive over £1,200 a year should travel fist class, and it was admitted that officials earning between £400 and £600 did travel first class. Certainly no one outside the official class with an income of £400 to £600 can afford to travel first class. The
right hon. Gentleman seemed to wish to mislead the House on the question where the money was to be got back from.

Sir A. MOND: I do not think the hon. Member ought to say that.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman objects to my saying that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will withdraw what I said, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman implied that the money would be got back, and did not say exactly in what way it would be got back. I do not think it really matters whether the money has to come from the taxpayer, which it would have to do in this case, or from the ratepayer. It comes from the same class of people more or less. The fact is that it has to come. I should like to add my protest against the Vote.

Sir A. MOND: My chief difficulty in replying to the criticisms which have been made, is that hon. Members did not recognise the Vote they were discussing. All kinds of figures, which I have not been able to connect with anything on the Paper, have been produced, and all kinds of statements have been made, which showed that my first explanation appeared to be either not understood or incomprehensible. After I had carefully explained that Sub-head B, £26,000 arising out of the cost of living, technical staff, had nothing to do with housing, the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) tried to fix it on to 116 houses which happen to be completed. I really have given up endeavouring ever to explain Estimates again. These Estimates are not really as difficult as hon. Members seem to think. There is no great complication about them. They are divided into two items. One is £44,000 for housing. This House passed a larger Vote for my Department to undertake housing schemes. Housing schemes cannot be undertaken without staff; one is the logical consequence of the other. It would be an absurd waste of money to carry on housing schemes with the aid of an inefficient staff. When my Department was asked by the Cabinet to undertake this work I stipulated that I should be allowed a staff sufficient and efficient for the work. I have had enough to do with large industrial concerns to know perfectly well that if I am asked to carry out such complicated work as housing by direct labour
the first thing I have to do is to have a proper staff, and I can only hope to make the work efficient if I have first-rate men to do the work, and the right type of men to supervise the work. That is how private people make a success of their enterprises, and if Government Departments have not made a success of their enterprises it is because there has often been want of competent and efficient staffs to do the work. There has always been an idea that any man was good enough to carry out technical work. That is not right, and nobody knows it better than some of the hon. Members who have criticised me. When I say that the overhead charges on this work will be less than 2.75 per cent. for all the schemes, I think I am right in saying that no private enterprise could come in and make any profit out of that. I do not think there would be great competition for it. The right hon. Member for the Camborne Division said that this was a bad Estimate because we have not provided for this service, but I do not think he will persist in that criticism when I inform him that at the time that these Estimates were framed the idea that the Office of Works should take on this housing had never been considered. It was many months later, when housing schemes were not getting along, when local authorities were stopped and could not get tenders, that we were invited and asked to intervene in order to help the housing situation in the country.

Mr. ACLAND: If that be so, why were there very large increases made in this Estimate?

Sir A. MOND: It was because of the increased burdens thrown upon my Department. All sorts of additional work was put upon us, including the equipment of factories, training centres for the Ministry of Labour for ex-service men, the building of cottages for the Ministry of Agriculture's settlements for ex-soldiers, and so on. These and a very large number of services have been thrown on my Department since the War, so that in reality our work has gone up and not down, and that we have had to estimate for. This question of housing, so far as we are concerned, was only settled last autumn, and all this work had to be done and the staff had to be created. I have said that this is a recoverable service and it is
being recovered It is quite easy to say that the ratepayers will have to pay if not the taxpayers. Obviously the ratepayer who was getting work done by his own Borough Council through a private architect and a private contractor would have to pay for that work and pay overhead charges, and he would not save any money.

Sir D. MACLEAN: He would save first-class railway travelling from London, at any rate.

Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman ought not to make an observation of that kind. Supposing some corporation or other local authority in the country has the sense to employ a great architect from London instead of an incompetent local person. That corporation would have to pay the expenses of the London architect and it would save a lot of money in the end.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Am I right in saying that this item of £4,000 for travelling expenses is an additional sum entirely for housing for the current year? There are 116 houses completed. Is that a reasonable travelling allowance for the houses completed during the current financial year?

Sir A. MOND: The amount is £4,000. These 116 houses are only the completed ones, but there are 3,736 houses in the schemes of which 1,335 are commenced, so the £4,000 must not be spread over the 116 houses. The 116 houses are at Camberwell and the travelling expenses from my office to Camberwell do not amount to £4,000 or 4,000 shillings. But we have got schemes going all over the country. We have got to negotiate with local authorities. But the number of houses concerned is double the figure mentioned. There are 3,700 houses actually settled and there are 3,700 houses in negotiation. Surely somebody must go see the sites and make all the necessary arrangements as to supervision. It is a large organisation. The hon. Gentleman asked whether all the officials travelled first-class. Certainly not. The question what class an official travels is not settled by me. The point if it is to be raised should not be raised on this Vote, because it is a general matter. The £4,000 is for last year and is spread over all these houses. The right hon. Gentleman
said that railway fares have risen 25 per cent., but they have been raised 75 per cent.

Sir F. BANBURY: Seventy-five per cent. altogether.

Sir A. MOND: I thought that there had been two increases in the period. One hon. Gentleman has objected to the £17,000. That £17,000 will come off the £44,000 and the money will automatically come back because I refuse to do any building unless I am certain that the money is coming back. My right hon. Friend seems to fear that nearly every local authority in the country is going to be bankrupt. I will not undertake any work for a local authority which is going to be bankrupt. My money is coming back. Then my right hon. Friend has drawn a gloomy picture of the bankruptcy of these local authorities he is connected with. So far as payment is concerned, I am going to see and I have seen up to now that this money will return. The whole point on this Vote is very simple, but nobody has tackled it. It is not whether or not it is necessary to have a staff. Obviously a staff is necessary. It is whether, with the staff which I have got, the amount of money which I propose to spend upon particular schemes on overhead charges is an unreasonable amount. It is no use hon. Members coming here and saying, "I have pldged myself to my constituents that I will vote against the Government on all possible occasions when an Estimate is brought up." That is, of course, a phrase which sounds nice on a platform.

Sir H. NIELD: The right hon. Gentleman has perverted my statement. I said I was pledged to vote against the increase of bureaucracy. I do not care what bureaucracy it is. I have never opposed an Estimate where it was a genuine expenditure which could not be prevented, but I am, and always will be, the deadly foe of an increase of bureaucrats or an increase of their remuneration.

Sir A. MOND: If you sanction schemes you must sanction the payment of people to carry out those schemes. Nothing is more undesirable than an unnecessary bureaucracy. I am not pleading for an unnecessary staff, but for a staff—I am certain of my facts—which is smaller than that required for the work, a staff which is now overworked. If I were to produce
the overtime sheets of the staff, the Committee would ask me to increase this Estimate. The sum of £26,000 is spread over 532 officials. An hon. Member tried to show that these 532 officials were all employed in testing materials. None of them, as a matter of fact, is employed on that work. I can tell the Committee what type of people they are. They are mostly minor technical officials—draughtsmen, measuring surveyors and other technical assistants attached to the Director of Works, and also technical assistants attached to the Directorate of Lands and Accommodation and to the Supplies Division. The average increase of pay is about £1 a week.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Are we to understand that a technical staff of 532 is engaged in building some 3,000 odd houses?

Sir A. MOND: None of this staff has anything at all to do with the houses, which form a very small part of the Department's work. This staff is connected with the other work of the Department, largely engineering work, which is very considerable. The cost of living is coming down, but these people have had this money paid to them during the time that the cost of living has been rising. This is not future money but past, and therefore this money is equivalent to the rises which have been given by every employer in the country, owing to the increased cost of living. I do not think the Government Departments are as good employers on the whole as the best private employers, and this amount here is much lower than what I should call an adequate scale, but it is an attempt to meet the great hardship on the lower scale officials owing to the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. A. L. PARKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of his staff on the housing question compared with the number of workmen employed on the same houses?

Sir A. MOND: I have not got the number of workmen employed on the houses, and I do not know that it would be a very good comparison, because while you are working out and laying out schemes and negotiating with local authorities preparing sites, you are employing relatively more people on your staff and technical side than you do when your scheme is fully settled and organised and the job is going on. I can get the infor-
mation for which the hon. Member asks if he likes to put the question down. I want to remove one misconception that the whole of these schemes are going to be carried out by direct labour. That is not the case. When people will come and give us a lump sum contract at a reasonable price and enable us to know where we stand—which is really the contractors' business—I shall be very glad. As things become more normal I have laid it down, and it is being followed, that wherever possible the work will be given out to a contractor in the ordinary way. That, however, does not do away with the necessity for maintaining a staff. I would point out that we are doing this work, not because we are hankering after it, but because the local authorities have asked us to do it as they cannot find anybody else to do it. I would like to dispel the picture of greedy or zealous officials buzzing round the country, seizing town councillors round the neck, and begging for their housing schemes. On the contrary, we have been asked by the town councils in different parts of the country to assist them, and where we find we can be of use we are glad to put our services at their disposal. That is really the position, and as things get more normal I trust that that position will be eased. I believe that the explanation I have given will show that the work is being carried out with the utmost economy, and I hope that the Committee will now have the kindness to let me have this Vote.

Major BARNES: As an architect, I think it was most unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to cast a slur on a very honourable profession by saying that for the planning of schemes they had to rely on great London architects and not on incompetent local architects.

Sir A. MOND: No. It was my last wish to say anything derogatory to local architects. I said there might be cases in which the local authorities could not get a local architect and had to employ one from London.

Major BARNES: I am not speaking from a personal point of view, but as a member of the Council of the Institute of British Architects. I feel I could not sit here and let that pass if I were to do my duty to my members
I want to appeal to my hon. Friends of the Labour party not to deal with this Vote as if it were an issue between individualism and collectivism. It is not that at all. The whole question is whether the Minister is carrying out the work entrusted to him in an economical manner. There can be nobody more interested in seeing the work so carried out than the Labour party. It is not a question between public and private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is going to carry out this work at a percentage of 2.75 for overhead charges, but we have not had a single figure to support that. If I could be satisfied that he was getting the services of an architect and also of a builder at that percentage, I should think he was doing it cheaply, and I would support him. I suggest that the best course would be for him not to press for this Vote to-night, but to bring it up again to-morrow and to give us some figures by which we can really test his statement. This Vote only covers a portion of the time, and the right hon. Gentleman has given us no assurance that the additions to his staff made in the main Estimate are not also employed on this work. The position is that there is a staff in existence, which may be costing £50,000 or £100,000 a year. What is it doing? We do not know; we have not been told, nor have we been given any exact figures. We have been told that negotiations have been going on for 3,000 houses and that 1,300 have been strated. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given us some

data by which we could have formed an opinion as to whether he was carrying this work out economically or not. In connection with other estimates we have generally had memoranda prepared and put in our hands to show whether they were justified or not. It should have been possible here, but he has not done it. On that ground I, for one, if this goes to a Division, will follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby against this. But I want to say, here and now, that if I were satisfied that this was economical expenditure, that we were getting value for our money, I should certainly not vote against it, because this, at all events, is money which is being spent on something for the general good of the country. But that is not our point. Our point is whether it is being spent in an economical fashion. We have not been satisfied on that point. I would ask my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) not to make this a party question. We are all interested as citizens in these financial matters, which ought not to be treated as party matters at all. We are all anxious to see the money of this country saved wherever possible. We want it in our own pockets, as we can spend it better than the Government can spend it for us. If a Vote is taken it should not be a party one, but a general Vote of the Committee.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £63,000, be granted for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 135.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nield, Sir Herbert


Atkey, A. R
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Poison, Sir Thomas


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hood, Joseph
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Bruton, Sir James
Johnstone, Joseph
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington. S.)
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lorden, John William



Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glanville, Harold James
Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant
Major Mackenzie Wood and Major


Gould, James C.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Entwistle.


NOES


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Barlow, Sir Montague
Breese, Major Charles E.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnett, Major R. W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Armitage, Robert
Barnston, Major Harry
Briggs, Harold


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Brown, Captain D. C.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Cecil, Rt Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Irving, Dan
Rankin, Captain James S.


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Remer, J. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Coats, Sir Stuart
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cope, Major Wm.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Royce, William Stapleton


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sexton, James


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lloyd, George Butler
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lort-Williams, J.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lunn, William
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lynn, R. J.
Stanton, Charles B.


Finney, Samuel
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Forestier-Walker, L.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Swan, J. E.


Forrest, Walter
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Mitchell, William Lane
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moles, Thomas
Townley, Maximilian G.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Turton, E. R.


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Gregory, Holman
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hailwood, Augustine
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Wise, Frederick


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perring, William George
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Younger, Sir George


Higham, Charles Frederick
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.



Hinds, John
Purchase, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Randies, Sir John S.
Captain Guest and Colonel Sir R.




Sanders.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'clock.